Comedy in all forms.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP5YFr4SkCQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdNDoY9zRws[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VCSUiTI604[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpGO402HoHM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffPnse4WQs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueR6_ipaw4g[/youtube]

If it hasn’t already been worked into a joke, it should be. The phrase ‘executed at gunpoint by a sexy woman’ and ‘sexecuted at bunpoint by a sexy woman’ need to be worked into a joke. Like a ‘what is the difference between’ joke or something. I don’t write jokes so I won’t do it.

Do it man. If you believe in yourself you can do anything.

Knock knock…
Who is there?
9/11.
9/11 who?
You said you’d never forget!

theonion.com/article/new-sub … r-11-33768

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwe4jF-BDbM[/youtube]

1:33: I was just telling Melissa one of the first lessons we learned back at… Stanford Law… was the modern proliferation of food poisoning claims against wealthy private home owners. In fact if one were so inclined, one could make quite a lucrative law practice with little else.

How is everyone feeling tonight?

Oh look honey, there’s the hors d’oeuvres.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjfHuAVig9g[/youtube]

Warning: explicit lyrics.

I did this in less than an hour… the recording (the first and only take) and the editing on the movie maker. If I had more patience I coulda killed this shit ya’ll.

sendvid.com/p7c04nrd

Brah, if I didn’t have to hold the phone and could stand up somewhere in a room or something I’m telling you I would have murdered this video. I even have a pair of those casual slacks the mexican gangsters wear. The shooting angle would be like a rap video… the cam would be at an angle below me looking up. I would pace menacingly around the camera shooting gang signs and swinging my arms around. It would be fantastic display of rapper histrionics. If I had a zoom and could pan too?.. that shit would be off the chain.

If a man comes to think he knows what it means to believe in god, he must be at a point where after some rigorous thinking he starts to think it isn’t so absurd to believe in god after all…, but then the thing he now thinks is reasonable slips from his grasp, and he moves away from the likelihood of his belief being true in proportion to his feeling justified in believing it.

Put another way, the moment belief in god is put into the domain of logic it becomes something that could be false; man wants to approach belief in god as carefully and cautiously as possible, yes, but by using the means to do this (rationale and logic) he moves further and further away from the thing he wants to know is true without being in a position to accept that it might be false.

A magnificent paradox! Kierkegaard put the sauce on that shit, ya’ll.

“The more one suffers, the more, I believe, has one a sense for the comic. It is only by the deepest suffering that one acquires true authority in the use of the comic, an authority which by one word transforms as by magic the reasonable creature one calls man into a caricature.”- Kierkegaard

sendvid.com/1bq8zrnt

If you were a god it would be a rude thing to do to to expect your creation to feel humiliated and reduced before you. Keep that in mind for a second. One element missing from the monotheistic narrative is the metaphor of the son surpassing the father or the student surpassing the teacher… usually parts that are always involved in the anthropomorphic structuring of this kind of narrative. Note that only in the relationship to God is this part missing… all other relationships to authority archetypes involve that theme of aspiring to be better and surpassing… a signification of a healthy ethos. Compare the Gnostic variations of man’s imperfection and forlorness from god that evolved out of neo platonism.

Now I propose that this element only arrives in a dualistic monotheism where there’s a good and bad god working. This way any evil can be attributed to the bad god. Without sch a source for evil man would have no need to interpret his relationship to god as subordinate. He would not be in an imperfect and divided state with God because there is nothing contrary to god, see. The origins of man’s pessimistic religious sense begins where man believes he is divided from god… a development out of egypt, zoastrianism, and post-platonic Gnostic thinking. It wasnt until this transcendent notion of god was challenged by spinz, i believe, that man began his intellectual revolution into analytical philosophy and what has become a kind of unanthropomorphic Newtonian deistic understanding of god. Neat how it all worked out. A hermeunetic pattern there. A reorientation of mans pathological religious sensibility.

Edit to add Bruno. critically important player.