It's like splitting the red sea.

And here I thought porn sites had banking problems. When he got up onto the podium I was almost thought he was going to try a little stage diving and crowdsurfing, but I bet they would have parted like the red sea.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.


And what you need to acknowledge, sir, as a self-proclaimed student of History is that is that Christianity meant something profoundly different to the Founders than what Christianity is associated with today. So claiming that the founders were Christian and thus America is founded on Christianity is pretty disingenuous. There might be a slight grain of truth to it, but you're willfully disregarding the larger evidence that they knew the dangers of Religion. It's obvious that a human being is going to attempt to govern according to their morals and back then, most people's morals did come from religion and the founders had a wide variety of different religions, so to claim that the nation was founded on Christianity willfully ignores everything else the founders drew upon and is deceitful at best, a sad attempt at a coup at it's worst.

There is a reason why only two commandments are actually laws.

The Constitution is a secular document. The establishment clause is pretty clear on how religion should be treated in regards to our gov't. There's a reason we don't tax church. Gov't doesn't involve itself in Church, therefore the opposite must be true, Church doesn't involve itself in gov't. No taxation...no representation. You can vote your beliefs at the ballot box all you want. More power to you, but you have to do it as an individual. And the Constitution is also pretty clear on what it thinks about the majority taking away minority rights.

With that separation in mind, and getting back to the original topic since you like to tangent. I have zero problem with marriage being a religious institution. You want to be recognized by gov't? Get a civil union. Want to be recognized by god? Get the head of your church to marry you. Since church is a private organization, that's up to them. But there are plenty of churches that do marry gays, so it really is a matter of time before the acceptance of gays becomes universal (we're already at 50 percent and those numbers aren't going to go back down) and there will be enough pressure for even the Vatican to change their stance. They've changed stances before. If not, they'll be left by the wayside like we leave other old and outdated things.

Just because you claim that there is evidence, doesn't make it so. I don't recall ever hearing about any published papers about evidence of a creator in any scientific journals. I would think it would be big news.

Therefore, we're back to square one sir, the burden of proof is on your God. If it wants a Christian gov't, it's going to have to do a lot better than an ancient book that's been translated countless times and has had its meaning changed countless times and portions of it's "morality" are flat out wrong. Not to mention the phenomenon by which people reject the faith when they actually read the bible. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even you don't agree with stoning and slavery. If you do, then I don't think you and I can continue having a civilized discussion.

You are welcome to your faith, sir, but when you govern a nation of many people of many different faiths and non-faith, you have to have a better standard by which to govern by. The burden is on you to prove that homosexuality infringes on your freedoms and you simply haven't made your case...and you probably never will.

>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.


I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.

I don't know if you're being deliberately stupid, or what..I never claimed everything recorded in the bible has been proven archaelogically as of yet..what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate..ever..on the contrary, thousands of discoveries have confirmed its 100 historical reliability. Pretty good track record for a bunch of myths, huh? This contridicts your claim that it is historically unreliable, which just shows that you don't know anything about history. The bible has been *the* source for historical information up until more recently..a large part of what we know about ancient history came from the bible.

I'll endulge you in your challenge though..

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusalem-artifacts.html

evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

evidence of red sea parting is inconclusive..someone found chariot wheels but it hasnt been accurately verified and eygpt wont let anyone in there




>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":
1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.
If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.
>> ^kceaton1:
Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.

I'm inclined to agree.
P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?


Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":

1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.

If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.

>> ^kceaton1:

Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.


I'm inclined to agree.

P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

@xxovercastxx Red menace! I'm here entirely for the bragging rights, showing good videos is a byproduct of that. After I've gotten my crown, there isn't much more to gain, so now I sift more rarely and just things I like myself. There is to little systematic focus on "look what I did". If the sift promoted that more, like games do, like reddit does, like many other places do, then it would get bigger. I'm certain of it. We need more competition and we need more reward, it will cause growth and it will better the sift for all of us! I'm a single blue fish in an otherwise red sea, ach!

If you don't like that argument, and you're a commie, then you might appreciate that there is a pragmatic element to not having videos not be linked to dead users, in that live users actually go around and fix their videos when they go dead. Furthermore, if the point of sifting is to show videos to more people, then we should be able to repost as much as we like - dupeing only takes the video away from views, especially if it's to an old post - then the video vanishes for people who don't know what to look for.

@BoneRemake over the years a lot of unwritten rules have sprung up from discussions

for instance:
* It used to be that if any video that wholly contained another newer video, then the newer video was considered a dupe - that's not changed to include that if it's "significantly different" then it's not a dupe. That's a big grey area right there.

* If an original video is long and the newer video is not, then - within reason - you should not dupe it, because the newer is likely significantly different in that it focuses on a single event or small part of the other video

* if the newer video is posted by me, then I kill you!

* If a video is discarded, you can bring it back with promote, this is a bad thing, since it fucks around with dupes - while the video was discarded, it was "legal" to post the video again and fair game. But if you promote the old one, then suddenly there's an older version lying around - in that case the old version is actually killed and the newer stands.

@blankfist:
It's simple:
more views = good
more votes = good
dupeof -> no more views, no more votes ->bad
dupeof -> clean up sift -> good
dupeof = bad+good

I'm sure you get my point, but just to spell it out, the video loses by being dupeofed quickly, because it does not get exposure - this is more relevant with old posts, like the one referenced earlier, because a lot of younger sifters might not have seen it at all - a promote does not do the same as just letting this one ride the wave of votes and then dupe it afterwards. Viewer win, the original poster wins, the new poster wins (top 15/1 achievement) and who loses?

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

And for god's sake, don't make heroes out of warlocks people!.....oh what's that? Moses parted the Red Sea with his hands and staff?.....Jesus was at a drinking party and turned water into wine?.... And he raised some guy Lazarus from the dead?....And he actually walked on top of water?....well, those don't count as warlock deeds. They're in the bible.

1) I daydream often, but retain full situational awareness
2) There's a 90% chance that I can kill you from 500 yards.
3) I have very little patience for stupid people on the road.
4) I have what are probably the world's flattest feet.
5) I can make farting noises with my neck/shoulder.
6) I can puff my neck out like a bull frog.
7) I can grab my uvula and pull it to the front of my mouth. It grosses people out.
When car alarms go off, I often fantasize about taking my rifle and shooting them.
9) PTSD is a bitch.
10) I'm only 23 and have owned four vehicles.
11) Two of them were/is a Volvo.
12) Children annoy me.
13) Except for my nieces and nephews.
14) I hate big cities.
15) I graduated in the bottom 12 percent of my High School class.
16) I was #9 in my MOS school in the Marine Corps. (Suck on that, Blankfist )
17) I love video games.
18) I'm a huge fan of Star Trek TNG and Voyager.
19) The first internet connection I had in my house as a kid was through freei.net, and I had to hide it from my parents and drag a phone line across the house to use it.
20) I'm a firm believer that all people who regularly buy bottles of water need to be punched in the face.
21) Won 2nd place in a NASA/Nat'l Science teacher's assc. "Design a spacecraft" contest when I was in grade school.
22) Got pissed that I didn't win first to get that trip to space camp.
23) People thought I was going to shoot up the school in High School. It worked to my advantage because the assholes that congregated in the middle of the hallway would part like the Red Sea when I walked down the hall.
24) I often get irritated at people and proclaim that I should be Supreme Chancellor of the World so that I could outlaw fat girls in belly shirts, guys in skin-tight pants with white plastic sunglasses, Emo, cheap beer, bottled water, cigarettes, slow drivers, people that don't pay attention to cyclists and anyone/thing else I am currently pissed at.
25) I didn't know I could count this high.

>> ^Retroboy:
I upvoted the above comment with great hesitation. Although its points are valid - that you can't trust the casualty counts released by either side because of their obvious bias - the interviewee in this case is foreign and not Palestinian. This is a military action in a highly populated area, and I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are not far off.
It's also bad news that the population of Gaza is so young, not just for the casualty distributions, but because teenage boys are excellent recruits for militants due to their greater willingness to believe in and sign on to a dangerous cause. An older person looking around at the carnage and with their own children to protect might be more inclined to support stopping it, but young men might see this and get angry enough to sign up with the resistance and fire rockets back, contributing to the destructive cycle.


But hey, that's not really a bad problem for Israel is it.

1. Your enemy are surrounded to the north and east with walls, to the south with destroyed tunnels and walls (preventing access to Egypt) and to the west by the Red Sea.
2. They do not have a serious standing army/airforce (no tanks, artillery beyond hand held, certainly no jets/helicopters).
3. They have little food and supplies.

So a few more rockets take a few more Israeli's out... It's all "collateral" damage and it gives the leadership more reason for more action.

And America's picking up the tab. Don't you guys feel kinda ass raped by all this? You're losing your jobs, your houses, your companies are collapsing, your returning vets can't get appropriate health care and support (you know, the guys out their dying for you) and your government is bankrolling another countries ability to bomb kids.


The commentator's analogy is simplistic and inappropriate. "I think that there were shots coming from that direction so let's throw a bomb at that school over there" has an entirely different context from "Shots have been coming from this region for a long time and they've been landing in our territory with the intent to deliberately harm our people. We have warned you to stop it or shots will come back and hit wherever your shots are coming from, and they won't stop until yours do." This rationale certainly still doesn't make attacking a school right, but if you listen solely to the commentator you're not getting the whole story.
Both targeting locations in schools or marketplaces AND using those locations as launching points because you think they will incur retaliatory attacks that will harm civilians and make the enemy look bad is horrible.


UN school ran by UN administrators housing refugees. Unless the UN is complicit in the attacks now...

Seriously, do you think the Jews would have appreciated America firebombing Dachau or Auschwitz because in amongst all of the holocaust survivors there could be a couple of German troops firing back?

What is scary, after going through such a terribly cultural event that they would perpetrate something similar on another race. Kudos, they became the monsters they despised.

I guess Moses had a little trouble with his MacBook as he walked through the Red Sea...

Barack Obama's campaign responded sharply to a new McCain webad depicting Obama as a parody of a biblical prophet.

"It’s downright sad that on a day when we learned that 51,000 Americans lost their jobs, a candidate for the presidency is spending all of his time and the powerful platform he has on these sorts of juvenile antics," said spokesman Hari Sevugan. "Senator McCain can keep telling everyone how ‘proud’ he is of these political stunts which even his Republican friends and advisors have called ‘childish’, but Barack Obama will continue talking about his plan to jumpstart our economy by giving working families $1,000 of immediate relief."

The ad, released only on the Internet, is the latest in a series mocking the Democratic nominee.

"It should be known that in 2008 the world shall be blessed," begins the ad's deep-voiced narrator. Later, Obama emerges Godlike from the clouds.

The ad quotes Obama in both serious riffs telling a crowd "we are the ones we've been waiting for"; and in a sarcastic one, joking to an audience, "You will experience an epiphany and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"

The ad then shows Obama expressing his hope that America will look back at the 2008 election as the beginning of the end of global warming. The ad then cuts to an image a Charlton Heston, as Moses, parting the Red Sea, before concluding:

"Barack Obama may be The One, but is he ready to lead?"

Obama's campaign responded to McCain's webad after sending out a separate statement from Newark Mayor Cory Booker, whom McCain had praised in a speech at the Urban League today.

"In yet another dishonest attack at the Urban League, Senator McCain misled the American people about Senator Obama's record and his own," Booker, an Obama supporter, said, praising Obama's support for charter schools in Illinois, and attacking McCain's opposition to spending on a range of education programs.

"With that kind of track record, Senator McCain should be the last person lecturing Senator Obama about a commitment to quality education for our nation's children," he said.

No I think all these are creations and manifestations of man, I could claim to receive Gods word now, the only thing stopping you or anyone else taking me serious is how far you are willing to believe this applies to Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Christianity and all other religons.

At the end of the day all religions are creations of man, not the creation of God. Thus they are wrong. I too am being 100%.

There is no way anyone can convince anyone else that the Bible or any scripture is made by God.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
So, you agree with me that the only similarities have to do with flak from others.

Is that so much more different than the accounts of Moses claiming to part the Red Sea, or Noah building an arc? Why is it okay for some to claim to have received the word of God 2000 years ago, and not okay for them to say they received the word of God yesterday?

I'm being 100% serious.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
L. Ron Hubbard makes shit up about Xenu, DC-10s, thetans and all that good stuff.

Joseph Smith makes shit up about getting golden plates from an Angel. Oh and Jesus visited America, multiple gods and worlds. Oh by the way they also have modern prophets whose official statements become official canon.

I was relating them as two relatively modern belief systems with questionable origins. Not directly.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
What's questionable about Mormonism as it relates to Scientology? I fail to see any similarities, other than the amount of scrutiny the two receive.

Scientology has a known history of abuse, illegal activity, and motives for world domination, for lack of a better term.

Where are the parallels?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
You sound like a nice person whose trying to defend a religion that has questionable origins and backgrounds.

It's like Scientology. Also based on questionable facts, but am sure there are some nice folks who practice it.

I don't really understand what you mean by anti-Mormon propaganda, I would love if you could show me some sources.