Tough question. I'd argue that it's success at the cost of happiness - which is how success typically happens. Still, I believe that life isn't about success. Life is about being happy. So, unfortunately, I guess my answer would be that it isn't.
Sometimes, the two can go hand in hand. At least with schoolwork. I mean, my parents encouraged me to do well, but they never really punished me for doing poorly or set up strict study tables or anything. They just told me that I needed good grades or I'd end up going to one of the public highschools. And given the public highschools in my area... that was incentive enough.
By the time I was in highschool, I just kinda started enjoying it. And college was just plain fun.
I wish I could afford to go to a university. My parents couldnt afford it and now I cant afford it unless I want to be buried under a huge load of debt. I wanted to be a curator growing up and in high school I got a pretty good gpa... I just didn't have the money for it. Here I am now with no debt working full time , payin my own bills and such. Despite my humble income, I'm not a deficit. That doesnt keep people from assuming that because I didn't go to college, i'm a hs dropout that must be talked down upon. This is the kind of shit that makes the educated look like elitist assholes.
I wish I could afford to go to a university. My parents couldnt afford it and now I cant afford it unless I want to be buried under a huge load of debt. I wanted to be a curator growing up and in high school I got a pretty good gpa... I just didn't have the money for it. Here I am now with no debt working full time , payin my own bills and such. Despite my humble income, I'm not a deficit. That doesnt keep people from assuming that because I didn't go to college, i'm a hs dropout that must be talked down upon. This is the kind of shit that makes the educated look like elitist assholes.
I had a long conversation with a girl at a party two days ago who is not going to college past two years but feels she will be looked down upon. A shame really since she's putting that time to getting certfied working in a pharmacy and has nothing to be ashamed of.
I talk a lot about college and how much I think of it, obviously, considering my own work in academia. However, I'm the son of a laborer and a mid level manager, neither of whom went to college but both of whom were hard workers. And really, the only people who I find it hard to tolerate are those who are simply lazy. Just about any work that earns an income is respectable work.
I think it's an interesting phenomenon that as the Republican party grows increasingly fringe in its appeals, it loses its ability to cast a large umbrella under which to accommodate several, sometimes disparate views. Increasingly, moderates will find themselves falling toward the Democratic. For others, progressivism seems to be a natural bent their faith would take them. While no man needs a religion to establish morality, the religious faithful obviously have slants their morality will take as they reconcile internal impulses with the commands of their religious texts. Without getting into the details of why Christians distinguish the commands of Old and New Testament, which is derived from the forms of covenant established in the Old Testament versus New Testament as well as distinctions made in hygiene versus moral commands, my hope is to illustrate the spirit of the commands of Jesus Christ and the church he established. Today I want to deal with the issues of entitlement programs that benefit the neediest of Americans.
Economic policy and wealth disparity have occupied a large portion of the American narrative during this political cycle, but equally important has been the discussion of entitlement programs that include Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and general welfare. The history of America is intriguing in that it combines a strong sense of individualism with a religious basis. While the founding fathers may have varied in their beliefs and been unrecognizable to many modern fundamentalists, given their Deist leanings, there can be little denying that states such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established in large part through religious motivations. Of course other factors were at play as well, but it would be foolish to dismiss the numbers of individuals who were motivated by religious desire.
That religious spirit has continued into the modern era, and been co-opted by the Republican Party and members of the Christian Coalition. This is unfortunate for many members of the church who believe strongly in cooperative development. That spirit, that people rely on one another in order to better the whole, is embedded in Biblical texts. Yet somehow Republicans have been able to claim they are the carriers of religious light, while simultaneously promoting such a level of individualism that it would threaten entitlement programs that help millions of Americans.
Strangely, the notion of every individual pursuing their own course without any external aid seems entirely foreign to the New Testament church. Just weeks after Christ's resurrection and ascension, the church began to conduct itself in a way that, quite frankly, would be called socialism by any modern Republican. From Acts 2, The Fellowship of Believers.
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Let us pair that segment with James, who discusses the role of the wealthy and the poor in a social context. From James 2, Favoritism Forbidden.
2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Here we see a group of people who conduct themselves with the clear intention of being a body, as a people that are equal. Rather than promoting aggressive individualism at the sake of all else, they see the benefit of acting as a community. They ate together, and did not distinguish themselves by any rank, but saw themselves as sharing a heritage and future. They sold their homes and possessions and made the profits available to the community as a whole so that everyone could benefit. This was a church that admitted wealthy and poor alike, and expected everyone to be given the same respect and treatment. That's incredibly important when discussing how those in need should be seen, because this is a nation in which people like Mitt Romney argue that the highly successful are the ones that should be noted first. Yes, to a degree that is true, and there is a reason why we emulate the practices of successful individuals. In another sense, however,these highly successful individuals are still just human beings. Respect is one issue; degrading another human being for being less successful is quite another. Giving poorer treatment to a less successful individual is, frankly, contrary to Scriptures.
Rather than see this as an attack on individualism, this should simply be a wake up call to anyone promoting such an ideal that simultaneously claims to prioritize God and Christian values. American politicians have to reconcile the Biblical prioritization of community organization versus individualism, and while individualism can't be given up outright, being the basis for much of America's success, it also can't be enshrined to the degree that it excludes programs that benefit the whole of society through shared contribution.
In other words, if the early church thought it was appropriate to give up individual success in order to make the community benefit, any 'religious' politician should be willing to compromise on aggressive individualism.
Because if one begins to argue that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and welfare all need to be abolished, then that goes directly against the spirit of much of the Bible. Time and again, there is a call to help those most in need. The people of the New Testament, and Christ himself, based this view on centuries of tradition stretching far into the Old Testament.
Proverbs 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Proverbs 22:9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.
Psalm 41:1-3
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The Lord sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.
Psalm 82:3-4
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
Politicians are tricky creatures, though, and produce creative arguments. One, which must have required especial wrangling - and subsequent mangling - of these concepts, is the notion that by having government programs that fulfills these roles, it robs individuals and the church of the ability to truly fill in the gaps. People are forced to do it rather than willingly committing to it. While there is truth in that, and the Bible is heavy on emphasizing that motivations behind actions should be genuine, there's also a firm insistence that government help those most in need. In the previous entry of this series, Nehemiah railed against government officials and money lenders (banks) that exploited the poor with high taxes and unfair policies. Such anger was not reserved for that time period alone, but repeated throughout Israel's history. In fact, some of God's greatest anger is reserved for those in government who exploited and harmed those most in need with their policies.
Isaiah 3:14-15
"The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?' declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty."
This attitude, this anger at those who benefited while the poorest suffered, set the table for a church that emphasized the needs of the poor and that actively helped support those who needed it. Perhaps one of the most brilliant books of the Bible, though often overlooked and badly interpreted, is that of James. James was written to address various problems of the church, one of which concerned the debate of what saves, faith or good works. Though the final answer was, generally speaking, faith, James wrote to emphasize that simply the act of claiming to have faith couldn't be enough. If there was to be any evidence of faith, it had to come through the actions of the faithful. Here, James specifically argues against people who make claims of faith but do not demonstrate it.
James 2
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone... 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
James explicitly states that claims cannot go without action, and in previous verses makes a statement that goes directly to the heart of what is wrong with the approach that 'religious' Republican politicians make when they argue for the end of entitlement programs.
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that —and shudder.
Time and again in both the Old and New Testament, the Biblical authors argued that God pays special attention to those in need. The poor, the hurting, are the ones he is most concerned with. Those policies that only served to exploit their condition further were what brought some of his greatest wrath, and discriminatory treatment that gave greater privileges to the wealthy was condemned. This needs to take priority with any politician that claims a religious background. Not only did the New Testament church conduct itself in a socialized system, but distinguishing between classes and according varying privileges was frowned on. This leaves the modern, religious politician with very limited options of how to approach the needy and the systems that help them.
My purpose in these writings is, of course, NOT to attempt to reconcile all views on all things. People will forever find things about the Bible they do not like, and Christians will always find things about other societies or customs they can't agree to. However, I think it's important to find the common threads between these views, because I can't imagine Christ wanted to establish a church whose reputation was one of greed or hatred. It is likewise unfortunate that the loudest are the most visible, and the loudest are often the most angry or dissatisfied. This does not mean there are not, likewise, a large number of Christians who are uncomfortable with exploitative and discriminating policies. At any rate, this was written with a positive outlook and a hope to bridge some gaps. Thanks.
I always get plum pickled when I hear someone else is joining the ranks of academia.
Not sure what that means, but okay. If it means you're going to drink a lot, that's probably a wise thing. I anticipate having no time once I get started. Possibly having negative time.
I wish I could afford to go to a university. My parents couldnt afford it and now I cant afford it unless I want to be buried under a huge load of debt. I wanted to be a curator growing up and in high school I got a pretty good gpa... I just didn't have the money for it. Here I am now with no debt working full time , payin my own bills and such. Despite my humble income, I'm not a deficit. That doesnt keep people from assuming that because I didn't go to college, i'm a hs dropout that must be talked down upon. This is the kind of shit that makes the educated look like elitist assholes.
If you ever feel bad about not having a college education, check out the We Are the 99% blog. There are so many people there with useless degrees and/or a mountain of student debt.
I seriously doubt that in this country I would have gone to university without a full scholarship, simply because it's so expensive (and the US educational loan system is so extortionate) that both my family and I would have struggled to fund it. When the system discourages smart people from going to college, the country has an equality problem it needs to address.
In plenty of cases not going on to tertiary education seems like the smart decision here. There's certainly no shame in it. I understand the sentiment though... sometimes I feel looked down upon because I don't have a degree from a prestigious US school. If I had a spare $120k+ lying around I might do an MBA part time here over the next 2-3 years, but don't think it would be a particularly good financial move.
Anyway, a genuine elitist arsehole will find any way they can to put you down. If you do have a degree, they'll just use something else. As long as you have your life together it's not worth bothering with what other people think.
As long as you have your life together it's not worth bothering with what other people think.
Exactly. No matter what you believe in, I think it's generally agreed upon that death is the great equalizer. What good is 3-15 years of post sec. then? Do what you want with what you have.
I don’t know why, but I love seeing old movies in theaters. New wave movies suck compared to the stuff that used to come out. But there are some good ones.
Old movies I have seen re-released:
Citizen Kane
Jaws
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Chinatown
Cool Hand Luke
The Godfather
North by Northwest
The Searchers
Ghostbusters
Psycho
Scarface
Casablanca
The Birds
Frankenstein & The Bride of Frankenstein
To Kill A Mockingbird
Comments
Sometimes, the two can go hand in hand. At least with schoolwork. I mean, my parents encouraged me to do well, but they never really punished me for doing poorly or set up strict study tables or anything. They just told me that I needed good grades or I'd end up going to one of the public highschools. And given the public highschools in my area... that was incentive enough.
By the time I was in highschool, I just kinda started enjoying it. And college was just plain fun.
>fun
Pick one
College=fun.
Seriously, I'd do it over again if I could. This is why I'm going to grad school.
I always get plum pickled when I hear someone else is joining the ranks of academia.
College. Screw fun.
I had a long conversation with a girl at a party two days ago who is not going to college past two years but feels she will be looked down upon. A shame really since she's putting that time to getting certfied working in a pharmacy and has nothing to be ashamed of.
I talk a lot about college and how much I think of it, obviously, considering my own work in academia. However, I'm the son of a laborer and a mid level manager, neither of whom went to college but both of whom were hard workers. And really, the only people who I find it hard to tolerate are those who are simply lazy. Just about any work that earns an income is respectable work.
This sentence is so that the previous one wont be lowercaseified.
The Progressive Church, Part 2: A Biblical Basis for Progressivism - Entitlement Programs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122016/-The-Progressive-Church-Part-2-A-Biblical-Basis-for-Progressivism-Entitlement-Programs
I think it's an interesting phenomenon that as the Republican party grows increasingly fringe in its appeals, it loses its ability to cast a large umbrella under which to accommodate several, sometimes disparate views. Increasingly, moderates will find themselves falling toward the Democratic. For others, progressivism seems to be a natural bent their faith would take them. While no man needs a religion to establish morality, the religious faithful obviously have slants their morality will take as they reconcile internal impulses with the commands of their religious texts. Without getting into the details of why Christians distinguish the commands of Old and New Testament, which is derived from the forms of covenant established in the Old Testament versus New Testament as well as distinctions made in hygiene versus moral commands, my hope is to illustrate the spirit of the commands of Jesus Christ and the church he established. Today I want to deal with the issues of entitlement programs that benefit the neediest of Americans.
Economic policy and wealth disparity have occupied a large portion of the American narrative during this political cycle, but equally important has been the discussion of entitlement programs that include Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and general welfare. The history of America is intriguing in that it combines a strong sense of individualism with a religious basis. While the founding fathers may have varied in their beliefs and been unrecognizable to many modern fundamentalists, given their Deist leanings, there can be little denying that states such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established in large part through religious motivations. Of course other factors were at play as well, but it would be foolish to dismiss the numbers of individuals who were motivated by religious desire.
That religious spirit has continued into the modern era, and been co-opted by the Republican Party and members of the Christian Coalition. This is unfortunate for many members of the church who believe strongly in cooperative development. That spirit, that people rely on one another in order to better the whole, is embedded in Biblical texts. Yet somehow Republicans have been able to claim they are the carriers of religious light, while simultaneously promoting such a level of individualism that it would threaten entitlement programs that help millions of Americans.
Strangely, the notion of every individual pursuing their own course without any external aid seems entirely foreign to the New Testament church. Just weeks after Christ's resurrection and ascension, the church began to conduct itself in a way that, quite frankly, would be called socialism by any modern Republican. From Acts 2, The Fellowship of Believers.
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Let us pair that segment with James, who discusses the role of the wealthy and the poor in a social context. From James 2, Favoritism Forbidden.
2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Here we see a group of people who conduct themselves with the clear intention of being a body, as a people that are equal. Rather than promoting aggressive individualism at the sake of all else, they see the benefit of acting as a community. They ate together, and did not distinguish themselves by any rank, but saw themselves as sharing a heritage and future. They sold their homes and possessions and made the profits available to the community as a whole so that everyone could benefit. This was a church that admitted wealthy and poor alike, and expected everyone to be given the same respect and treatment. That's incredibly important when discussing how those in need should be seen, because this is a nation in which people like Mitt Romney argue that the highly successful are the ones that should be noted first. Yes, to a degree that is true, and there is a reason why we emulate the practices of successful individuals. In another sense, however,these highly successful individuals are still just human beings. Respect is one issue; degrading another human being for being less successful is quite another. Giving poorer treatment to a less successful individual is, frankly, contrary to Scriptures.
Rather than see this as an attack on individualism, this should simply be a wake up call to anyone promoting such an ideal that simultaneously claims to prioritize God and Christian values. American politicians have to reconcile the Biblical prioritization of community organization versus individualism, and while individualism can't be given up outright, being the basis for much of America's success, it also can't be enshrined to the degree that it excludes programs that benefit the whole of society through shared contribution.
In other words, if the early church thought it was appropriate to give up individual success in order to make the community benefit, any 'religious' politician should be willing to compromise on aggressive individualism.
Because if one begins to argue that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and welfare all need to be abolished, then that goes directly against the spirit of much of the Bible. Time and again, there is a call to help those most in need. The people of the New Testament, and Christ himself, based this view on centuries of tradition stretching far into the Old Testament.
Proverbs 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Proverbs 22:9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.
Psalm 41:1-3
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The Lord sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.
Psalm 82:3-4
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
Politicians are tricky creatures, though, and produce creative arguments. One, which must have required especial wrangling - and subsequent mangling - of these concepts, is the notion that by having government programs that fulfills these roles, it robs individuals and the church of the ability to truly fill in the gaps. People are forced to do it rather than willingly committing to it. While there is truth in that, and the Bible is heavy on emphasizing that motivations behind actions should be genuine, there's also a firm insistence that government help those most in need. In the previous entry of this series, Nehemiah railed against government officials and money lenders (banks) that exploited the poor with high taxes and unfair policies. Such anger was not reserved for that time period alone, but repeated throughout Israel's history. In fact, some of God's greatest anger is reserved for those in government who exploited and harmed those most in need with their policies.
Isaiah 3:14-15
"The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?' declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty."
This attitude, this anger at those who benefited while the poorest suffered, set the table for a church that emphasized the needs of the poor and that actively helped support those who needed it. Perhaps one of the most brilliant books of the Bible, though often overlooked and badly interpreted, is that of James. James was written to address various problems of the church, one of which concerned the debate of what saves, faith or good works. Though the final answer was, generally speaking, faith, James wrote to emphasize that simply the act of claiming to have faith couldn't be enough. If there was to be any evidence of faith, it had to come through the actions of the faithful. Here, James specifically argues against people who make claims of faith but do not demonstrate it.
James 2
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone... 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
James explicitly states that claims cannot go without action, and in previous verses makes a statement that goes directly to the heart of what is wrong with the approach that 'religious' Republican politicians make when they argue for the end of entitlement programs.
James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that —and shudder.
Time and again in both the Old and New Testament, the Biblical authors argued that God pays special attention to those in need. The poor, the hurting, are the ones he is most concerned with. Those policies that only served to exploit their condition further were what brought some of his greatest wrath, and discriminatory treatment that gave greater privileges to the wealthy was condemned. This needs to take priority with any politician that claims a religious background. Not only did the New Testament church conduct itself in a socialized system, but distinguishing between classes and according varying privileges was frowned on. This leaves the modern, religious politician with very limited options of how to approach the needy and the systems that help them.
My purpose in these writings is, of course, NOT to attempt to reconcile all views on all things. People will forever find things about the Bible they do not like, and Christians will always find things about other societies or customs they can't agree to. However, I think it's important to find the common threads between these views, because I can't imagine Christ wanted to establish a church whose reputation was one of greed or hatred. It is likewise unfortunate that the loudest are the most visible, and the loudest are often the most angry or dissatisfied. This does not mean there are not, likewise, a large number of Christians who are uncomfortable with exploitative and discriminating policies. At any rate, this was written with a positive outlook and a hope to bridge some gaps. Thanks.
Not sure what that means, but okay. If it means you're going to drink a lot, that's probably a wise thing. I anticipate having no time once I get started. Possibly having negative time.
Preferred IX myself, but...
Mabel is his sister isn't she... oh god.
If you ever feel bad about not having a college education, check out the We Are the 99% blog. There are so many people there with useless degrees and/or a mountain of student debt.
I seriously doubt that in this country I would have gone to university without a full scholarship, simply because it's so expensive (and the US educational loan system is so extortionate) that both my family and I would have struggled to fund it. When the system discourages smart people from going to college, the country has an equality problem it needs to address.
In plenty of cases not going on to tertiary education seems like the smart decision here. There's certainly no shame in it. I understand the sentiment though... sometimes I feel looked down upon because I don't have a degree from a prestigious US school. If I had a spare $120k+ lying around I might do an MBA part time here over the next 2-3 years, but don't think it would be a particularly good financial move.
Anyway, a genuine elitist arsehole will find any way they can to put you down. If you do have a degree, they'll just use something else. As long as you have your life together it's not worth bothering with what other people think.
Exactly. No matter what you believe in, I think it's generally agreed upon that death is the great equalizer. What good is 3-15 years of post sec. then? Do what you want with what you have.
How about this:
1. coolsome
2. coolsome
3. some random member
Old movies I have seen re-released:
Citizen Kane
Jaws
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Chinatown
Cool Hand Luke
The Godfather
North by Northwest
The Searchers
Ghostbusters
Psycho
Scarface
Casablanca
The Birds
Frankenstein & The Bride of Frankenstein
To Kill A Mockingbird
FUCKING SERVERS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZypZA2o3oHc
Here's the story.
You better watch your ass, Fawful.
Don't you dare attack me! I'm wearing glasses, for goodness sakes!
I don't discriminate when it comes to targets. But, I'll make sure your glasses remain intact.
My apologies, Icedhope, sir. I was just leaving.