I first heard Pete do this bit on his Podcast. It was an audio recording from the UCB theater in New York. He says it is an early version of the joke. Comparatively, the video version seems like he was going through the motion. The video also seems to be edited and the audience wasn't responding the same way. I'm not saying this was bad, it just wasn't as good as the UCB audio version. See for yourself, he plays the bit at the beginning of this podcast:

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/e/5/6/e568af5cf000d20d/YMIW11_Doug_Benson.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c18731d5c859d1ae&c_id=4123069

If somehow there is a video of the UCB version, please let me know. I've Googled every word combination I could think of and this is the only video I could find.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

I wonder how frequently this happens -- that people poised to speak out against the Church have been given hush money to keep quiet and allow the Church to continue their abuses...

By the way, the anchorman is the same guy as seen in this photo...

Some great examples:

Boyanka Angelova, ball final EC Torino 2008 (Turin)

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

http://www.chicagonow.com/opinion-youth-america/2012/02/direct-popular-vote-v-the-electoral-college/

I've already mentioned a few of the things the article talks about, but the main thing IMO is that we're not just a nation of people, we're a nation of states. The president needs to win not just the people, but the states as well and the EC represents that.

If we decided elections by direct popular vote, rural areas would be completely fucked and the east and west coasts' interests would dominate every election.

I may lean left, but that is NOT how I want to win elections. The nation is already moving leftwards anyway without a direct popular vote so there is just no reason to manipulate the vote like that.

If the population of this nation was spread evenly throughout the country, a direct popular vote might work better, but that's just not the situation is it.

It's another one of those things, like flat tax, where it SOUNDS like a great idea, but when you put it to the test, it just doesn't really work out. Simple ideas don't solve complex situations, and we need to step past that way of thinking if we're going to progress.

It's the same reason rational people laugh when the gun nuts talk about how we need guns to defend against tyranny. Sure tyranny is a very real possibility when you have a monarch, but our government was designed with that in mind. Our gov't is specifically designed to make it hard for tyranny to thrive. You have to have a lot of people on board in order for gov't to make a significant change. Sure it may be slow and inefficient sometimes, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

Like I said initially though, I do think the EC needs to be tweaked a bit and go to split vote, but the problem of gerrymandering needs to be solved first, before that will work.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

"regulating the economy"?

"attacking gun control"?

From what I recall, regulation of our economy has been watered down to the point where we have corporate welfare and the public picks up the tab when things go bust, as they just recently did. Wall Street got off scott-free, was given boatloads of money, while millions were foreclosed on, lost their jobs, healthcare and net worth. I'd like you to point out one negative regulation of the economy that has happened during this Democratic presidency.

As for gun control: What are you on about? Obama is the one who eased gun control laws and concealed carry permits in federal parks. Please name a single gun control law that Obama has "attacked".

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I believe I am entitled to an opinion, so I'll share mine:
People call me a democrat, a republican, and a libertarian. I don't subscribe to any. I don't like democrats for regulating the economy and attacking gun control; I don't like republicans for violating personal rights (women) and drug wars, and I don't like libertarians for their ideological castration of government services. My ideal federal government is one that protects your human rights, educates you when you are young, and takes care of you when you are old or sick. I would gladly pay my taxes for these three key points. Everything else should rest with the states.
>> ^deedub81:
I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.
This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&a

mp;soc=-4.41
>> ^NetRunner:
You think conservatism isn't a religion? What is it, then?
>> ^deedub81:
What does conservatism have to do with faith?

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?

#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.

My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.
>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.
In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

I believe I am entitled to an opinion, so I'll share mine:
People call me a democrat, a republican, and a libertarian. I don't subscribe to any. I don't like democrats for regulating the economy and attacking gun control; I don't like republicans for violating personal rights (women) and drug wars, and I don't like libertarians for their ideological castration of government services. My ideal federal government is one that protects your human rights, educates you when you are young, and takes care of you when you are old or sick. I would gladly pay my taxes for these three key points. Everything else should rest with the states.

>> ^deedub81:

I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.
This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&a
mp;soc=-4.41
>> ^NetRunner:
You think conservatism isn't a religion? What is it, then?
>> ^deedub81:
What does conservatism have to do with faith?