"Why is self defense or MMA about being a badass?" LOL look at these role models! And no, wearing football clothing isn't the same thing, because just wearing your team's jersey isn't a statement to the world that you might tackle them at any minute.

FWIW, I've seen my share of guido douchebags adorned in TAPOUT gear posturing like schoolyard bullies.

Going out in your TAPOUT hoodie is telling the world "I fight, so watch out for me." In my book, it's basically equivalent to putting martial arts patches on your jeans jacket in 1988.

So what's up, are you training to be a cage figher?>> ^swedishfriend:

Why is self defense or MMA about being a badass? Football is far more violent for example. Are people trying to look like a badass if they wear football related clothing? I don't fight for fun, I calm people down so they don't fight. You are imagining a whole story out of very little information when it comes to me and when it comes to people's fashion choices. It pays to get to know people rather than just assuming shit based on nothing.
(edit) PS. oh, and threatening people is against the law. That is where breaking the law comes in...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill withers, lovely day, funky groove, 70s' to 'Bill withers, lovely day, funky groove, 70s, 1988 remix' - edited by lurgee

>> ^heathen:

>> ^Lolthien:
Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.

I upvoted the video, please tell me more about how I should reconsider my direction in life.


See the life you have been living and how that has affected what you find funny? You may want to adjust to a modern lifestyle and shift your sense of humor accordingly.



Or not. Not really my business.



Seriously, unless this guy is being ironic, I could not find a single funny thing about it.

Was going to write witty reply, but @messenger already nailed you.

Hey, I think Rush is on, better get back to your AM radio, you old fogey.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Yes, it was a sly insult of your analytical powers, but between the lines it also was a rebuttal to your argument. I'll explain: The point is that you think Saddam's having WMDs in 1988 has some impact on the fact (not the opinion) that there were no WMDs in 2003. What happened in 1988 doesn't change facts in 2003. But 63% of Republicans (seemingly, including you) still think there were WMDs, even when all the top Republican leaders say so. If your position is, "There were WMDs in 1988 therefore there were WMDs in 2003," that's illogical. We know there were none.

The implication in the joke is that the reason you still believe there were WMDs is that you watch Fox News, which is notorious for wilfully spreading misinformation, particularly following Republican party lines, including about the existence of WMDs.

@KnivesOut, sorry for ruining your joke by explaining it.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?

Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.

Here:

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

>> ^Lolthien:

Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.


I upvoted the video, please tell me more about how I should reconsider my direction in life.

>> ^Sarzy:

Great movie. And yeah, Edward James Olmos is definitely not in it, so not sure about that tag. I guess James Earl Jones and Edward James Olmos are kind of similar names.


Lol, I wasn't even thinking what I was putting in the tags. Messing up James Earl Jones and Edward James Olmos is just my personal mental mess-up (dang you Galactica!)

Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.

STFU CAN!!!>> ^siftbot:

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by dingens.

"The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell - 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Given the disclaimer, “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it's hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably interpret it as "stating actual fact". Even outside the context of Hustler magazine without the disclaimer (which probably should have been part of the image itself), photoshopped images like this are usually pretty obvious. I haven't been able to find an uncensored version of it, though, so I can't really say, but assuming the editing is obvious, the above argument still holds.

Cenk's point about the image being circulated without their permission is a good one. Clearly you couldn't hold Hustler Magazine accountable for unlicensed distribution, any more than you can hold an ammunition manufacturer accountable for a murder committed with one of their products.

I think one could make a valid legal argument against Hustler if, for instance, an image of her being gang-raped was created and published. In that case, there would be a further issue of promoting violence in general, and upon her in particular. I don't know if it would work, but I think the argument could be made.

All that said, this is really slimy, even for Larry. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone denouncing the image and the actions of the creator/publisher.

And to answer your question @bobknight33, "if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy [sic], Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok[?]," - for the first three, legally yes, but also just as slimy, laughable, and worthy of ridicule/shaming. A mom who isn't a public figure is red herring in this context, but nice try at the emotional jab.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^VoodooV:
If Samberg goes too....SNL be hurting

It started hurting nine years ago. heh.. When this "new" cast came to be.
Nothing replaces the 1994-2003'ish cast. I have just rolled my eyes over the past many years when plunked down in front of the boob tube with family or a friend I had.
Stinky show, probably even more stinky now.
Griping is stress relief !

This is relevant :
<div id="widget_1944715422"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=224080&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div>


Wow. I think just the opposite. SNL really hurt from 1994-2003 because of that cast. Cheri Oteri, Will Ferrel, Rachel Dratch, Molly Shannon and the like were complete hams.
It was refreshing when they replaced them all nearly at the same time with the crew they have now. This latest incarnation brought some fresh voices and decent writing. Not quite 1988-1993 greatness, but it has definitely been a step up.

You missed the one where the guy says that women release chemicals that kill sperm when raped...

http://articles.mcall.com/1988-03-30/news/2610418_1_anti-abortion-abortion-control-pregnant

It's 1998, not 1988.

I am so looking forward to watching this. Two greats in a conversation decades ago. You kick boot enoch!>> ^enoch:

found it!!
http://videosift.com/video/bill-moyers-interviews-noam-chomsky-1988