Bob

The Slick Rick tribute is a MUST SEE.

Go to the original language, and you'll see "Kephas" (sorry about the spelling). Peter was the first Pope. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, as the other Apostles are Bishops as well. Peter is consulted in issues of faith in the New Testament. Peter, Petros, Kephas, Pope all are under the root idea that Jesus left the keys to the Kingdom (in the next verse) to Peter. I do Catholic Apologetics, so I'm very well aquainted with the history of the question you raise. If you see Matthew 16:18-19, you first see Jesus make Peter the rock. (Some question translations, trying to say a gender difference in the translation of rock, but it really is an issue of Jesus masculinizing the word rock in the original written language, as to not call Peter a female rock...but that's deep into the discussion, not neccessarily what you raise) Then you can look later in John 21:15-17 where Jesus reaffirms Peter as the leader of his sheep. And then finally, so to not confuse the power granted to Peter with the positions of the other Apostles, Jesus affirmed the faith of the other Apostles in him as the leader of the visible Church (Luke 22:32). So when all said and done, yes, there is the Pope, the leader of the Church directly in the New Testament. This is all an aside when recognizing the Bible doesn't constitute all of Christianity, considering it's compilation happened long after Jesus died and Christianity began. That's the oral tradition that many miss. Yet the scriptures didn't come until decades after the death of Jesus, and his Apostles were already practicing the sacraments (like reconciliation John 20:23) that were later affirmed in the written portion of the faith. So I hope that cleared up any confusion.

Chapter and verse please? :sipread: Matthew 16:18 The very reason why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Petros, Pope, Rock) was to establish a man who would hold the keys to the Church and lead the visible Church on earth.

And that comes right back around to the root of what Kasparov questioned...How do you know? How can you say people in a historically oppressed police state ever honestly supported the leaders? Polls won't tell you. I mean look at U.S. sentiment some 5 years ago towards Putin: the majority of our Congress and of course our President took him as an 'ok' guy who has finally 'saw the light.' What this tells us is that international thought is also fickle. The most bare understanding of internal sentiment of the people in Russia is through the opposition party. It's the case in Zimbabwe, and almost any other turmoil filled place. Oh come on, are you trying to say that Peter The Great and Catherine The Great aren't beloved figures in Russian history? Please. :shakehead: What about what Catherine did to Radishchev? Or her conveinently not doing anything regarding her husband's murderers? Or the fact she was ignorant to all the problems around her in the highest structures of that government?

And that comes right back around to the root of what Kasparov questioned...How do you know? How can you say people in a historically oppressed police state ever honestly supported the leaders? Polls won't tell you. I mean look at U.S. sentiment some 5 years ago towards Putin: the majority of our Congress and of course our President took him as an 'ok' guy who has finally 'saw the light.' What this tells us is that international thought is also fickle. The most bare understanding of internal sentiment of the people in Russia is through the opposition party. It's the case in Zimbabwe, and almost any other turmoil filled place.

History doesn't lie. But oppressive regimes do. Russia's oppressive history includes the strongmen of which you speak. Their power isn't a representation of the people in that country, rather a representation of the corrupt hording power from the people.

Well we agree we weren't morally better. We have to agree to disagree on NATO because I think it is the definition of peacefully, yet forcefully working to provide international contempt for Russia's actions. I think Kasparov explained it well. You can't take Russian polling seriously in a police state. Also, I believe Kasparov would better understand his country than we could ever as U.S. citizens. Also, regarding the argument about "former": France calls themselves a superpower and us a hyper-power. Regardless, there is a difference in influence, per capita GDP, and overall perception of the two countries. Russia is a former superpower. Or they are a current superpower and we are a hyper-power. In any case, there is quite a difference in its former status to the current one it holds.

Schnazz and Ashtrey are just saying, "hey, you have an opinion, religion is an opinion. And you live your life off of that opinion. That includes voting or acting off of that opinion and affecting others. So, what if I disagree with your opinion? Should I be adversely affected by your opinion?" We have freedom of speech, except when it comes to religion. That's absurd. Someone who has not taken the leap of faith to accept something that is illogical (I'm willing to admit it. It's faith, which is the absence of the most basic reason) should be able to be as LOUD or influential as the faithful. If we silence one group, or try to discredit that group because they are speaking against the majority's opinion, are we really promoting a democratic view of the world? And Visqo, it got personal when AJ said those without a religion should shut up because they don't have any reason to stand up for anything. To accuse someone of having nothing for which to stand, and then telling that person he/she shouldn't have a say, THAT is personal. If I told you, "You're a Christian, so shut up", how would you react?

Well, I just saw the movie. 4 out of 5 stars. The only thing glaringly hard to overlook was when Maher made factually inaccurate statements about certain things in the Bible. For instance he tried to claim the Pope was not in the Bible (Matthew) and that the New Testament had no condemnation of homosexual actions (Corinthians, Romans). On the whole, I thought the movie was brilliant. He gave no free pass to anyone. I loved the tie-in with Scientology, as he goes, "Ya, you laugh at that, but a pregnant virgin, now THAT is rational." Charles is an artist in the way he directs and the clips of movies and raw footage were compiled perfectly. The message makes you question your most strongly held beliefs. And for good reason, as Bill Maher presents the reasoning why people of faith adversely affect him and the world. For those of you who say he shouldn't go there, and it's a personal thing, Bill's response is that it is only as personal as your influence. If you can vote, and you vote for a person who works off of faith, rather than reason, or a specific form of faith, you can influence how society works based off of one person's skewed set of beliefs. Bill's honest question is this: Why is believing in something without reason good? What good does it provide for society that is unattainable without such assumptions? They are tough questions to answer. I know my faith is something I firmly believe, but I think it is crucial that I at least hear the question and try to respond in a way that satisfies my own curiousity. P.S...You will cry in laughter regardless of your religion or belief.

Is anyone planning on seeing this documentary/mockumentary? I am, and I am very confident/religious in my Roman Catholic faith. Anyone else in the same boat? Or quasi-interested in the movie? I am a HUGE fan of Maher, and really can't give a good reason to my friends who call me out on supporting a movie de-basing all faiths, including my own. I still though have no qualms seeing the film, as I devour anything and everything Bill Maher (Real Time, his HBO standup). For those of you not aware, Religulous is a film criticizing ALL religion as the final barrier to advancing humanity as a more tolerant and intelligent society. He finds all religious people to have a 'mental' disorder/block from rationally deducing that any faith is 'dumb.' It is directed by the man who directed Borat, wrote for Seinfeld, and directed episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Am I alone on this?

We DID go overboard in our response (or pre-emption in the case of Iraq). We cannot ignore we've been overly aggressive in our own foreign military action. What you do indirectly bring up is that we do have a problem with our credibility now. Our country's actions compared to that of Russia's are not that much morally better. We do have historical precidence though, to see we must return to being a international leader of many countries, rather than a heavyweight throwing weight around. In many ways, the actions of Russia have made us look in the mirror. The United States is at its best when we head off other countries through intense, straightforward multi-lateral action (in diplomacy). This includes haste acceptance of a country that is vulnerable to Russia's own domineering plans. We have only provoked Russia by acting complacent with their attitude to the world (not calling alarm to their contracts with Iran, our lovely president's assertion he saw Putin's soul, etc). We have a common agreement not to start wars by throwing weight around, but I do think we also can allow for wars to start when we withdrawal our focus and stance on foreign affairs of a former super-power. Also, the claim about strong-men in Russia's culture is refuted by former Russian Presidential candidate, Garry Kasparov, in an interview a year ago on Real Time with Bill Maher : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvMHjXMiyy4

I am using the word Soviet because the aggression is de facto Soviet. Maybe not de jure, but in all tenses a true return to the Soviet oppression of the Eastern block. Also, yes, Georgia hit Russia with a flyswatter, so Russia hits Georgia with a lead bat? Please, Russia has been egging Georgia, through political maneuvering. We can head-off Russia if we act to show unity among Western nations early. It's the isolationism/ignorance that allows for massacres and suppression of freedoms in other countries. We need to get these countries into NATO so they can be shown, with resolve, to be a part of the international community, not just Putin's land.

Good try, but big FAILURE on your part. You forget history and why the word, "Soviet" is more than appropriate in the context of current events. Georgia, along with any other eastern block former Soviet territory, is quite vulnerable to Russia's acts of aggression. If you don't recognize what Russia is trying to do, then you are either (a) ignorant (b) blind. You said Russia will not sit idly by. Good point, considering they are making moves like the attack on Georgia. What we cannot do, is sit idly by. We can't ignore that Putin is using a puppet president now to mime democratic rule. We can't ignore the squeeze on the press in that country. And we certainly cannot ignore what Russia has in mind for her former territories. Does that mean we go to war with Russia? No, but we don't watch them slaughter others for living independently. We stay vigilant, and pro-actively urge other nations to accept these Eastern Block countries into NATO as a firm warning we won't let groups of people be killed to satisfy a greed of Russia's elite.

well you all know my feelings about fantasy anything... BUT I JUST GOT BACK TO COLLEGE FROM THE PHILS GAME. AHHA WOOO. Unforgettable time!!

But hey, she can see Alaska.

When I first heard she got the pick, I thought, well hey, at least there is energy behind McCain now. As time has passed, it's just become painful.

I finally saw the full debate. I've also been watching much of the responses and I believe that the way the candidates worked the debate made each set of supporters convinced their 'guy' won. For me, I saw a landslide in McCain's favor. Georgia/Russia, out-of-control spending (and Obama's contribution), Iraq, Kissinger question, Iran/preconditions-for-talks, really anything focused on the foreign policy experience/positions all seemed decently expressed by Obama, but absolutely detailed and focused through historical and parallel examples by John McCain. Now the Gallup poll shows Obama won the debate, so I get that people would say Obama came across nicer, less 'hot-headed'. Personally, he seemed lofty, but not so nuanced (which surprised me, considering he usually has that in his corner). McCain came off very agressive, but factually aggressive, with some strong nuance on Soviet influence of the world. It's weird for me too, cause I like Obama much, and I never let myself fall into one corner or start hating one group just because I support a different one. So I would have been very open to him winning and I thought I had agreed more with him on Iran before the debate. McCain's reasoning historically just really put his position in perspective much more than any stump speech or town hall could. The only thing with which I was really disappointed was the bailout discussion, because both Obama and McCain hardly answered the question, with McCain finally giving an OK to it after much push.

you know it's all love.

I came here, what 2 months before him and I got a quarter of this fool's tally. I'm ashamed.

I first heard this song on the Can't Tell me Nothing mixtape June 2007. It's ok. The bass line is a little different a year and 3 months later, but I'm really indifferent to the song.

No one is gonna go in on anyone anymore. There are no allegiances. Everyone has their own things independently, which is good. There are no uber wars where Jay and Nas collab to kick Jones and 50. I actually like the environment now where if you have a problem, you hype it, then make a record together (Hello Brooklyn anyone?). Maybe hip hop is maturing a little? (Not in content, LOL)

AHAHAH HAHAH HAHAHHAAHA AHHAHA OOHHH AHAHAHHA Wait, he's kidding right?

This return will put to rest any of the unfounded rumors. They are tested extensively for markers in their chemical balances now. So it's not a question of what drugs they look for, but instead if any previous levels their body has jump or become erratic.

klsdhfklasdjhfakdhfiqehfaisdfhuaksldfhaskdjfhaskldfhaslkdhfklasdjfhlkasdhfklsadj fklashfklasdjhfklasdhf IF any of you have figured out, I kinda live for LE TOUR DE FRANCE. And the very guy who brought me into cycling....IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6A-Qsb...lhCUEgD933DQNG0 AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lance Armstrong is getting back on his bike, determined to win an eighth Tour de France. Armstrong's return from cancer to win the Tour a record seven consecutive times made him a hero to cancer patients worldwide and elevated cycling to an unprecedented level in America. The Tour "is the intention," Armstrong's spokesman Mark Higgins told The Associated Press, "but we've got some homework to do over there." Added Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's lawyer and longtime confidant: "We're not going to try to win second place." What team he'll ride with and in what other races he'll compete are undecided, Higgins said. "I am happy to announce that after talking with my children, my family and my closest friends, I have decided to return to professional cycling in order to raise awareness of the global cancer burden," the 36-year-old Armstrong said in a statement released to The Associated Press. "This year alone, nearly eight million people will die of cancer worldwide. ... It's now time to address cancer on a global level." In an exclusive interview with Vanity Fair, Armstrong told the magazine he's 100 percent sure he's going to compete in the Tour de France next summer. "I'm going back to professional cycling," he said in the story posted Tuesday on the magazine's Web site. "I'm going to try and win an eighth Tour de France."

I AM ABSOLUTELY BEYOND SICK OF THE VOICE MODIFIER.