Tags for this video have been changed from 'emotional, no shame, beautiful, manly man, bedazzled' to 'emotional, no shame, beautiful, bedazzled, Brendan Fraser, Elizabeth Hurley' - edited by deedub81

I always knew you had exceptional taste.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Absolutely brilliant.

This is my new favorite band.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Man-Man-The-Boombox

This is my new favorite band.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Man-Man-The-Boombox

Government should stay the fuck out of it.

Neither create a law for or against any way or the other, marriage is an issue between a couple and their church. If their church wants to marry them, then the govt. has no say in it.

They have to recognize it is a legal relationship, regardless if its a man / woman, or man/man, or woman/woman.

Also, it isn't an aberration of nature, homosexuality is rife in the natural world.
Lions, tigers, all of the ape/chimp/monkey species, mice..etc.

Man Man is great.

I've really been digging this lately. I bet you will be too.

http://www.last.fm/music/Man+Man

*takes up manly man position*

Whew, I'm so wired...

Transcribed for your reading pleasure (or torture):

The The Impotence of Proofreading

Has this ever happened to you? You work very, very hoard on a paper for English clash and still get a very glow grade on it like a D or even a D= and all because you are the liverwurst spoiler in the whale wide word. Yes, proofreading your peppers is a matter of the the utmost impotence.

Now, this is a problem that affects manly, manly students all over the word. I, myself, was such a bed spiller once upon a term that my English torturer in my sophomoric year, Mrs. Myth, she said that I was never gonna get into a good colleague. And that's all I wanted. That's all any kid wants at that age, just to get into a good colleague. And not just anal community colleague either because I am not the kind of guy who would be happy at just anal community colleague. I knead to be challenged, challenged menstrually. I knead a place that can offer me intellectual simulation.

So, I no this probably makes me sound like a stereo, but I really felt that I could get into an ivory legal colleague. So, if I did knot improvement than gone wood bee my dream of going to Harvard, jail, prison-- you know, in prison, New Jersey. So, I got myself a spell checker and I figured I was awn sleazy street, butt there are several missed aches that a spell checker can't can't catch catch.

For instant, if you accidentally leave out word, you're spell checker won't put it in you. And god for billing purposes only you should have serial problems with Tori Spelling, your spell check off may end up using a word that you had absolutely no detention of using because, I mean, what do you want it to douche? Ya' know-- No... It only does what you tell it two douche. You're the one sitting in front of the computer scream with your hand on the mouth going, "Clit. Clit. Clit."

Just goes to show you how embargo one little clit of the mouth can bee, witch reminds me of this won thyme during my Junior Mint. The teacher took the paper that eye had written on a Sale of Two Titties-- No, I'm serial! I'm serial-- She read it out loud in front of all of my ass mates. It was quite possibly one of the most humidifying experiences I have ever had being laughed at like that pubicly.

So, do yourself a flavor and follow these two Pisces of advice: 1) There is know prostitute four careful editing of your own work, no prostitute whatsoever; and 2hree) When it comes to proofreading, the red penis your friend. Spank you.

This hasn't stumped philosophers. I solved The Problem of Evil in an 8-page double-spaced paper. No problem.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
Freewill was a loophole created by the Church, after philosophers stumped Christians with the existence of evil. I believe the argument is summed up as:
The traditional conception of the Christian god is that he/she/it/whatever is:
1. All knowing.
2. All powerful.
3. Good.
So why does evil exist? If "god" was good, he wouldn't let something as bad as evil continue to exist, surely if he was all powerful...so, "god" either:
1. Doesn't know about it, therefore not all-knowing
2. Can't do anything about it, therefore not all-powerful, or
3. Won't do anything about it, therefore not good.

So the Church created the idea of "god" giving you a freewill, where you can choose. If you don't choose, or choose to go against what God wants, then you go to "hell", which isn't a choice at all. This is elementary logic, based on the rules that govern our reality (which "god" supposedly created).God didn't create man; Man created god.

Freewill was a loophole created by the Church, after philosophers stumped Christians with the existence of evil. I believe the argument is summed up as:

The traditional conception of the Christian god is that he/she/it/whatever is:
1. All knowing.
2. All powerful.
3. Good.

So why does evil exist? If "god" was good, he wouldn't let something as bad as evil continue to exist, surely if he was all powerful...so, "god" either:
1. Doesn't know about it, therefore not all-knowing
2. Can't do anything about it, therefore not all-powerful, or
3. Won't do anything about it, therefore not good.

So the Church created the idea of "god" giving you a freewill, where you can choose. If you don't choose, or choose to go against what God wants, then you go to "hell", which isn't a choice at all.

This is elementary logic, based on the rules that govern our reality (which "god" supposedly created).

God didn't create man; Man created god.

GIRLY MAN MAN MAN MAN!!!!!!

>> ^BillOreilly:
another pathetic witchhunt by the liberal Left against an innocent man


Man this shtick gets old.
_____________________
Yeah whoever is behind that profile sure has a lot of time to post mass amounts of unfunny comments.

first time I've seen that users words in a while though, I clicked ignore.

Oh my, if ever there was a wall of text it's this thread...

@feminists and the rest
I think this is a bit of a storm in a glass of water. Videos are ranked by popularity; popularity is not inherently sexist. We vote something up because we like it and down because we don't like it. Not because there are "banana and kiwis" in the picture or not. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that a video of banana and kiwis wouldn't go that far.)

The complaints about the top sifts are misguided, I think. They are there because they are good, not because of cock'n'balls. If women did similar acts they would get as many votes, no doubt.

As for Hollywood movies, well, we can't really do much about that. Hollywood is a business and they've got a working formula. Female leads tank at the box office. Sad, but true.

When I make fun of women (and I do, but I make fun of everyone) it's always because I know it's not really true. I can say "What are you doing out of the kitchen?" or ask in a voting booth "Are you allowed in here?", but dudettes: it's not malicious. I'm not trying to spew venom or anything like that. You're welcome to insult me once in a while too ("Gwiz, you manly man, why aren't you out saving the world with your mighty penis and muscles..." things of that nature ) I'm sorry if you're offended by that, but that's that.

I suppose like the "lynchings"-argument that kronos has made earlier ("it should never be uttered, even in jest"), you would have me (us) never use objectification and verbal use of gender roles even in jest? Pff, I honestly don't care. I don't want to kick someone that's down or anything, but if you cannot ever laugh at a "women can't drive" joke or the like, that's your loss.

If women want out of the gender roles, it's their responsibility to stay out of them. Go in the army like we have to, pay for your own damn drinks and cinematickets, stop scheming behind our backs.

@LittleRed
How should the admins make the site more gender friendly? If we start to police comments and moderate any derogatory language, then the site is effectively a dictatorship == is dead. WE, the sifters, have the power to make it more gender friendly, by voting on comments and commenting on other comments. I'm also here mostly for the discussions - the videos are secondary for me - and I think that we do have intelligent discussions. It really doesn't help when you call all of us a "bunch of pigs", because that just exposes you as a, well, not something good.

The site is what it is, we're not going to change ourselves, and if you want change then you'll have to do something about it. I hate to burst your bubble, but from my perspective videosift has a more accepting and tolerant community than I've seen anywhere else on the intarwebs. Sucks to be a feminist on the Internet.

>> ^roguewrx:
>> ^dannym3141:
I think the trajectory of the car was such that he thought he was perfectly safe. Not taking into account that the car could have twisted and slapped him off his perch was what put this guy in the manly man geographic.

I'd disagree. Nothing "perfectly safe" going on at any point in this video. You are at slight risk just watching it.
He stood his ground. He only had a couple of seconds to react, realized he wasn't going to be able to move far anyway, and kept filming. He's a pro.


Hence the word "thought". Indicating thought on the part of the cameraman. As in, he "thought" he was safe. That's where he thinks he's safe. Only past tense. Thought. Get it?

Ok, it's fun to think he's just got king kong's testicles dangling twix those legs, but that's what i really think it was