It's dead...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Charles Aznavour is an Armenian-French singer, songwriter and actor. Besides being one of France's most popular and enduring singers, he is also one of the most well-known French singers abroad. Often described as the "Frank Sinatra of France", Aznavour sings mostly about love.

He has written musicals and more than a thousand songs, made more than one hundred records, and appeared in sixty movies. Aznavour sings in six languages (French, English, Italian, Spanish, German and Russian), which has helped him perform at Carnegie Hall and other major venues around the world. He also recorded at least one song from the 18th century poet Sayat Nova, in Armenian.

- Wikipedia

>> ^LadyDeath:
>> ^jonny:
uh, what's British about that? (and if you say Ireland is part of the British Isles, I will hunt you down and kill you - or at the very least down vote a lot of your vids. )
I think you need to put LadyHawke somewhere in the tags or description.



From Wikipedia
Guinness (pronounced /ˈɡɪnɪs/) is a popular dry stout that originated in Arthur Guinness' brewery at St. James's Gate in Dublin, Ireland. The beer is based on the porter style that originated in LONDON in the early 18th century. It is one of the most successful beer brands in the world, being exported worldwide


*british it is...

Usury and indentured servitude are quite similar.

18th century indentured servitude (abolished): You sign a contract that makes you a slave for X years in exchange for safe passage to America.

21st century usury: You sign a contract that puts you in such massive debt that you are a defacto slave because nearly everything you earn will go to the creditor (or else they can reposess your home and let you starve to death on the street)

Fortunately most states have limits on wage garnishment and debtors can escape by declaring bankruptcy (although Bush has tried to restrict bankruptcy as much as Congress will let him). If they ever tried to completely eliminate the notion of bankruptcy, that could probably be overturned on 13th amendment grounds.

"Because after watching the clip above, my impression is that the Good One is exactly that: good. That is, he is good at his job, which is all you can ask of anyone. More precisely, he talks like a competent manager. If I was working in at a startup and I had a boss who gave pep talks this good, I'd feel quite comfortable with the administration. Management is more than just talk, but can you call the Obama campaign anything but a successful operation? The graphic design alone is brilliant.

There is only one problem: this outfit is very good at winning presidential elections. We have no reason to think it is any good at anything else. The candidate is a great presidential candidate. He will probably be a good president, too. Of course, that is to say he will be good at reading his lines and pretending to be an 18th-century statesman, which is the job of a US President in 2008. Perhaps we should just write in Paul Giamatti, who I'm sure could act the Good One off the stage.

Moreover, the Nazis had an effective campaign team, too. Plus some pretty good graphic design to go with it. Most people don't know it, but the SS dress uniform was designed by Hugo Boss. If design is your criterion, the Third Reich was the best government of the century. In fact, even if architecture is your criterion, I will take Nazi architecture over progressive architecture, any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And since the quality of architecture is indeed a good rule of thumb on which to judge the general quality of government, this is worrisome indeed. But all it means is that the case is an exception to the rule. Like anyone with any sense, I'd rather be governed by progressives than by Nazis."

Question, how do you describe a wound full of pus? Many a medical student has written in the chart, "on the patient's leg was a pussy wound."

From the American Civil war, and before, bullet wounds to the extremities were treated with amputation. The goal was to create a "clean" wound that didn't contain pieces of dirt and fabric, which almost always led to suppuration and gangrene. Prior to the days of anesthesia, the unfortunates were given laudanum, a mixture of alcohol and opium. Still, Paracelsus described an essential characteristic of an 18th century surgeon as "absolute pitilessness"

Those were rough days. The smell of suppuration has not been abolished, unfortunately. Anaerobic bacteria will singe your nose hair. The modern remedy is a dash of peppermint oil on the surgical mask. It's remarkably potent and an overdose will cause your eyes to water for the next 10 minutes.

'grow the fuck up' Hmm let me see. You're allowed say that because you haven't got a channel yet, is that your reasoning? I'm really not much different from you. Looking at your bio, if you weren't being too sarcastic or something, I can relate. If you look at the comment thread, you'll see that Sarzy is capable of relating too. Why do you need to attack me, because I took something personally from someone else? Is it because you really care about the issue, or because like me, your ego felt threatened?

You can answer me honestly, or take it as an attack, your choice.



In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
As for your remark about my being Sarzy's daddy... grow the fuck up. I was trying to make a point about a channel manager making ad-hominem attacks. I care about the issue, and don't know Sarzy from Moses.

As for making your apology... thanks.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
Are you Sarzy's daddy? I'd be the first woman here to make one, publicly. Not very feminine of me, was it?

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
I think you owe Sarzy a public apology for your public attack. Public ad-hominem attacks aren't welcome, especially by a community leader. Leave 'em for redneck morons like marinegunrock.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
Sarzy, you posted this to get a rise out of the folks who called 'no' on the Kung Fu video and I find that kind of behaviour belligerent. It wasn't to educate or show another point of view, it was to force the hand again, of the entire community, about what's acceptable or not. That's gonna get pretty old after a while.

Forgive me, if I assume wrong here, but, if you were hoping that by my or anyone else's objection to this video, that you could show us up for the 18th century housewives you think we really are, then you can go fuck yourself, coz I'll tell you now, even though I agree with oxdottir, as far as staying on the sift goes, I don't have a problem with this one.

It doesn't look like porn. It wasn't made as a porn movie.
I'll tell you how generous I'm feeling right now, even if you posted it for belligerent reasons- If it gets to stay, I won't kick it out of the sexuality channel, how's that?

persephone: I apologize for the 18th century housewife remark; I say stupid things sometimes (all the time?).

As for this video, I will change the title and description to something a bit less inflammatory, but I suspect that nothing can stay this video's impending execution. I honestly didn't think that this would cause even close to this level of controversy -- I mean, I knew there'd be a discussion but I sort of figured, what with it clearly being art and all, that it would be okay.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep now. For real this time.

Are you Sarzy's daddy? I'd be the first woman here to make one, publicly. Not very feminine of me, was it?

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
I think you owe Sarzy a public apology for your public attack. Public ad-hominem attacks aren't welcome, especially by a community leader. Leave 'em for redneck morons like marinegunrock.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
Sarzy, you posted this to get a rise out of the folks who called 'no' on the Kung Fu video and I find that kind of behaviour belligerent. It wasn't to educate or show another point of view, it was to force the hand again, of the entire community, about what's acceptable or not. That's gonna get pretty old after a while.

Forgive me, if I assume wrong here, but, if you were hoping that by my or anyone else's objection to this video, that you could show us up for the 18th century housewives you think we really are, then you can go fuck yourself, coz I'll tell you now, even though I agree with oxdottir, as far as staying on the sift goes, I don't have a problem with this one.

It doesn't look like porn. It wasn't made as a porn movie.
I'll tell you how generous I'm feeling right now, even if you posted it for belligerent reasons- If it gets to stay, I won't kick it out of the sexuality channel, how's that?

That wasn't a threat. I said I was willing to look past his belligerent actions and let it stay, anyway. I don't kick out videos for any reason other than going against the guidelines posted. Check my record. I try to be consistent and I don't kick out videos for personal reasons. Porn is also mentioned in my guidelines. Check it out.

Ad hominem attacks? I don't like being like told I'm sexually repressed like some 18th century housewife. I think I do a pretty good job of managing the sexuality channel and I think some of my videos have the most sexually liberated ideas in them.

Sorry Sarzy, if you were offended. I always take things too personally. It's not a good trait for a place like this.

Sarzy, you posted this to get a rise out of the folks who called 'no' on the Kung Fu video and I find that kind of behaviour belligerent. It wasn't to educate or show another point of view, it was to force the hand again, of the entire community, about what's acceptable or not. That's gonna get pretty old after a while.

Forgive me, if I assume wrong here, but, if you were hoping that by my or anyone else's objection to this video, that you could show us up for the 18th century housewives you think we really are, then you can go fuck yourself, coz I'll tell you now, even though I agree with oxdottir, as far as staying on the sift goes, I don't have a problem with this one.

It doesn't look like porn. It wasn't made as a porn movie.
I'll tell you how generous I'm feeling right now, even if you posted it for belligerent reasons- If it gets to stay, I won't kick it out of the sexuality channel, how's that?

Yeah, I'm aware of the sexuality channel, I just meant that you can seemingly push every limit of decency here EXCEPT sexuality, at which point we turn into a bunch of 18th century housewives. I mean, I'm in complete agreement that porn shouldn't be allowed here, but THIS ISN'T PORN.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.

If we want to argue that the document could use updated there might be a point to that but we can't just ignore one 18th century aspect without ignoring and weakening the other 9 articles of the Bill of Rights as well. Free speech, due process, and so on. We've tried that with drug war exceptions for search and seizure among other things as well as with efforts to outlaw rather than control guns in some cities and not only did it not offer the positive results we intended but it also made it so much easier to get away with other apparent violations of the Constitution that we've seen so much of in recent years.

The problem is that once we decide to ignore one part of it for our own reasons the precedent is set and others can just as easily ignore other parts for their reasons too. Either the document means something or it doesn't. If it does mean something one Amendment means as much as the next, it's all the law.

Compromises between various rights where they might conflict with each other we can and do make, gun control in simple terms can mean something as basic as they can't carry one without a license to carry or they don't need a tripod mounted automatic weapon on their roof. But to try to carry it to the next step and restrict the right to own one at all, we really do need to adjust the Constitution itself unless we are willing to risk major damage to the whole document and I don't believe the majority of the nation really wants either.

"Restricting military hardware such as your extreme example of nukes is an entirely seperate issue from the outright banning of private gun ownership."

Why? Just because you can see the lunacy in allowing grenade launchers and the like to be legal but somehow think that guns are ok doesn't immediately make the distinction clear. Why is it ok for those things to be rightly illegal, but not guns? Neither have any useful place in a modern society.

" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on."
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.

Yes Amendment 2 says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, it was written in an age when they felt they needed a Militia to stay safe... and Amendment 3, right after that one is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Which really does set the light in which the document was written, it was a time of fighting, of bloodshed and the like, and to BLINDLY try and use the second amendment to justify any and all gun ownership is plainly a cop out. I'm sorry, but rational reason is required here, not just saying 'Well, a 217 yr old document says so'.

The reason Education has been such an underperforming agency is because of the adamant demand for local control. The dept is hamstrung by a million different petty bureaucracies, often filled with people who have little or no experience in education.

the quality of education for the average student has gone down ... 225 years of contradictory evidence

Those statements are what's contradictory.

I agree there is a constitutional issue to be dealt with on this. But so is there a constitutional problem of the federal government mandating the 21 y.o. drinking age, for instance.

Dag - not all of the founding fathers envisioned the U.S. as a loose confederation. Read some of Hamilton's essays on the subject. Besides, we don't live in the 18th century anymore. Travel, business, communication are all vastly more free flowing now than even Hamilton expected. On the other hand, it is because of the expense/difficulty of communication and travel for many citizens that national laws on things like abortion, separation of church and state, equal rights, etc., are needed.

Karl (swedishfriend) - you give no context for claiming local solutions are better, just abstractions. Perhaps local solutions would have been better in determining voting rights in the south? Or maybe water usage in the west? I'm not saying that the national government always has the answers, but it is absolutely necessary to have a coherent national policy on things like energy policy, free speech, capital punishment, bank regulation, and on and on. [edit] Just reread your comment Karl - my apologies, you did give some specific examples. But take the minimum wage, for instance. How many states would have none were it not for the federal minimum wage? Yes, many states are ahead of the federal government on things like environmental policy, but how many more would be completely backwards without it?

The reason I can't support RP isn't because I think he will be able to get all of those things done, but because those views will inform all of his decisions. He will push an agenda of strict constructionism on every issue, and it's this blind allegiance to the "intent of the founding fathers" that I find troubling. The founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the issues we face today. What would they have made of the immigration debate? They wouldn't understand half the complexities involved.

Dag - you don't care if Kansas is teaching creationism? What about when one their graduates becomes a high school science teacher in your district? Or is appointed to the federal bench?

Here's a thought. Maybe up until the 18th century the earth really was flat? Makes more sense that way. Yes I think we should but it in text books.