>> ^Sagemind:

I'm sorry Shinyblurry,
You seem like a genuine person who believes strongly what has been given to you.
BUT...
Really?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities?
Those whom resist authority, will incur judgement from God?
That sounds a lot like Authority trying to rule over it's subjects.
Obey the government and all that it makes you do or you will incur the full wrath of our police force and military.
I have respect for myself and I have respect for others, but I don't need to respect authority that hasn't earned my respect. If we just comply with every command we are given, without question, then we condemn ourselves to be ruled and subjugated by the very power that is evil. Absolute Power is but Evil indeed.
If everyone bowed down and gave their power away, then there would be nothing left but mindless drones (sheep) serving the ruling class. This is something I WILL NEVER DO. No one person shall have power over me. Not one power should ever have power over any free mind.
Because you have bowed and given yourself away, (which I feel is a weak-minded action - sorry, no offense intended, that's just how I feel,) doesn't mean it's a good idea. This would only work if power didn't corrupt absolutely.
Antiquated rules by an antiquated idea of governance.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.



No offense taken and I appreciate your sincerity. I will elaborate here and say that to submit to the authorities doesn't mean unquestioning obedience. Anything commanded by the authorities which is contrary to what God has commanded should be disobeyed, because we should obey God rather than men. In general, though, it is to understand that God is the ruler of the nations, and He has established the authorities for His purposes, and that their authority ultimately derives from Him.

I won't bow down to corrupt human institutions, but I do give them the respect that they are due. You are right, in that we could never completely submit to an authority because they are all corrupt, but there is one authority that is not corrupt, which is God, and ultimately that is the authority we submit to when we obey the lesser authorities. I think you're hitting on the main issue that some have, which is that they don't want to give up total control to any authority; as you said, with humans it isn't warranted, but with God it is warranted, not only because He is worthy of it, but because in the context of His sovereignty the control we have is actually just an illusion.

To follow Jesus is not weak minded; if you look at American Christians, the rarest ones are those who are living sanctified lives which reveal the love of God. Rare, because following Jesus is not an easy thing, but a very difficult thing which takes a fullness of virtues, and this can only be done with Gods help. The weak Christians are the ones who are living as the world does and slandering His good name.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I'm sorry Shinyblurry,
You seem like a genuine person who believes strongly what has been given to you.

BUT...
Really?
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities?"
"Those whom resist authority, will incur judgement from God?"

That sounds a lot like Authority trying to rule over it's subjects.
Obey the government and all that it makes you do or you will incur the full wrath of our police force and military.

I have respect for myself and I have respect for others, but I don't need to respect authority that hasn't earned my respect. If we just comply with every command we are given, without question, then we condemn ourselves to be ruled and subjugated by the very power that is evil. Absolute Power is but Evil indeed.

If everyone bowed down and gave their power away, then there would be nothing left but mindless drones (sheep) serving the ruling class. This is something I WILL NEVER DO. No one person shall have power over me. Not one power should ever have power over any free mind.

Because you have bowed and given yourself away, (which I feel is a weak-minded action - sorry, no offense intended, that's just how I feel,) doesn't mean it's a good idea. This would only work if power didn't corrupt absolutely.

Antiquated rules by an antiquated idea of governance.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

It would be funnier if the patrol said, "Yeah sure I can spare 10 minutes."

Sounds pretty disgusting what happened to him. At the same time, he seems pretty disgusting himself.

He's either a next level troll, or he thinks gays should be executed.

http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html
>> ^artician:

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.
The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.
Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=pl
cp
Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

So, I went and looked up his other videos. Turns out he wasn't actually joking; the guy is a baptist pastor. Kinda ruins the fun for me, but that's not the important part.

The important part was that I guess the border patrol got sick of the guy, or something. They forced him to stop once and tazed and beat the hell out of him. What's more, the comments on facebook were largely along the lines of "you deserved it because you're a religious asshole", which just makes the problem so much worse when you have that whole "I don't agree with your philosophy, therefore you don't deserve equal rights" ignorance into it.

Here are some of the videos from his negative experience:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL411D86B36B802F1D&feature=plcp

Which I guess happened in 2009. Surprised I haven't heard of it before. So sick of this country...

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

>> ^syncron:

Hello class action suit.
>> ^PCGuy123:
>> ^syncron:
Couldn't she just remove the key to kill the engine?

No, this model of Kia Sorento had a proximity key, so she could start the car by just having the key fob on her person. I guess there is no way to turn off the car while it's in gear.
I'm finding inconsistent news articles on this story: one said the police don't know why the car finally stopped, while another article indicates the driver followed a troopers advice and lifted up the accelerator pedal while pressing on the brake, which made the car stop. But another article claimed the brakes were burned out already. The driver also put the car in neutral but that had no effect.
Kia Motors responded this was an isolated incident. I'm suspicious that Kia could do a thorough test on this in less than a day.



You could be onto something: I wonder if all electric ignition cars need some kind of emergency cut-off switch installed, in case of situations like this one with the Kia Sorento?

I have electric ignition on my 2012 Toyota, need to check to see if there is any kind of override...

EDIT: on my keyless starter I have to press and hold the starter button for 3 seconds, which should cut the engine off. But that feature may not be the same for other keyless starter systems.

Apparently the NHTSA has proposed standardizing keyless ignition systems in an effort to help reduce accidents related to these systems, per this article: http://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/feds-propose-standardization-of-keyless-ignition-systems

From the article:
"The agency also wants to specify the amount of time necessary to push the control to stop the engine. A driver should be able to stop the car immediately in an emergency without having to wait too long to hold the ignition control in order to do so. Keyless ignition control systems have been linked partly to the sudden unintended acceleration crisis at Toyota. In August 2009, a Lexus being driven by an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer went out of control accelerated to excessive speeds and crashed. All 4 occupants of the car were killed instantly. In the Lexus that was involved in the accident, the driver needed to hold the keyless control for as long as 3 seconds in order to cut the engine. In 2007, there was a similar accident involving a Honda Accord. The driver wanted to switch off the engine in an emergency using the keyless ignition, but could not do so."

Reminds me of an old joke I heard around the time we went into Iraq after 9/11:


A U.S. military patrol is driving along a road north of Baghdad and spots a dead Iraqi on the side of the road, lying in a ditch. A few yards up, they spot a U.S. serviceman lying in the same ditch, clinging to life. The squad jumps out and starts to render assistance.

"What happened?" they ask the injured soldier.

"Well, I was patrolling up the road, when that Iraqi jumped out of nowhere and started screaming at me "George Bush is a moron and a fucking asshole!". So I yelled back at him "Oh yeah? Well Sadaam Hussein is a dickhead and a retard!"".

"Yeah? Did you shoot him?" one of the squad asks.

"No. We were in the middle of the road shaking hands when a truck came along and hit us..."

^Good point. People kill themselves a lot in Japan as well.

http://vimeo.com/16532592
http://videosift.com/video/Toshimbo-Cliffs-Suicide-Cliffs-Yukio-Shige-Patrol

Unless your work is patrolling backwoods afghanistan.

Holy fuck, please get away from your computer and interact with real flesh and blood human persons.

I refuse to believe you can't comprehend how disgusting and illogical this comment is.

"Sure prison rape is awful. But why make prisoners safer? We should really be focusing on making sure no one ever breaks the law, ever. Then there wouldn't be any prisoners to rape in the first place. Duuurrr."

It's simple Pennypacker.
You're a human. Immigrants are humans. Prisoners are humans.

If it's unjust to treat WinstonField AssholePacker like this.
It's clearly unjust to treat immigrants and prisoners like this. Full stop.

Who the fuck cares what law these people broke.
You break the law all the goddamn time and no one humiliates and degrades you for it.

These immigrants are trying to live "the american dream".
Shouldn't you admire them for that.
Shouldn't you stand up and protect them from these injustices.
Shouldn't you recognize their determination and hardwork to achieve that dream by any means necessary?!

You should. But you can't.
Cause you're too wrapped up in your "conservative" moralfaggotry to stop and examine the reality of things.

I.E. - The problem here is that the Border Patrol abuse EVERYONE. Fully legal citizens included.

Yet your moralfaggotry conveniently allows you to gloss over that fact and the root of the injustice.
All in favor of tooting the - "Illegal immigration is the real problem" horn.

TL;DR

The problem isn't illegal immigration.
The problem is the systemic abuse, degradation and misconduct by people trusted with authority.

Pennypacker can't empathize. Needs to be tortured next time he gets a speeding/parking ticket.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing new here. Such things have plagued the system for decades. Only message I get is that the US needs a better, better, higher, deeper wall so that only legal immigration can take place.

If you were looking for sympathy, look elsewhither. Illegals get no sympathy from me. No one approves of abuses.

If you want to eliminate these abuses, the solution is clear. Eliminate illegal immigration by slamming the south border shut.

And yet should we not arrest them? Should we give them 'amnesty'? Should we just get rid of prisons and go to some sort of hippie liberal honor system? Pht. So what's your point?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Border Patrol Abuse' to 'Border Patrol, sexual abuse, torture' - edited by Boise_Lib

Before reading the comments I already felt it was staged. I do believe the concrete crushing the bus is real but it was all planned.

Why did no one jump/flinch? Why didn't they run over to the bus? Why didn't the camera drop (a weird reflex that you are all probably aware of)? Why was the bus backed into such an odd area? Why isn't the area blocked off and patrolled to keep people away? Where was the slab of concrete lifted from and who attached it to the crane? Why would it be lifted directly above the bus and not parallel to the building?

But the BIGGEST reason of all I think it is staged - comments have been disabled on the video...

http://videosift.com/video/snow-patrol-the-lightning-strike-rose-and-the-doctor

Greetings. It occurs to me that you might like this one - http://videosift.com/video/snow-patrol-the-lightning-strike-rose-and-the-doctor