>> ^brycewi19:
Ahem, you're welcome?
Ya know, when you finish watching a marathon of The Office, that line pretty much comes out of your mouth naturally.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> rasch187 said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/r/rasch187-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">downvote because of the fucking moronic description.
</div></div></div>

What irks me about this comment is that the phrase "that's what she said" was being bandied around over 7 years ago. I remember my teacher used to reply with this terrible phrase whilst i was at 6th-form to almost every vague inuendo he could see. Unfortunately at the time i also thought it was funny and reiterated it to the nth degree.

The problem with the phrase "that's what she said" is that it's a staple and empty reply designed for use by people who can't think quickly enough to come up with a decently funny innuendo. It CAN be funny, but only in an ironic way.

If you REALLY think about it, it means nothing - there's no content to it, no innuendo. Think about it. You could start popularising the phrase "insert joke here" and that would have the same thoughtful content as "that's what she said." Because the implication of the phrase is "a woman said that to me once", a boring and average innuendo, and none of us even consider this idea now that we've heard the phrase 3 million times by the same bearded twats who think they're the life and soul of the party - you're effectively saying "that's innuendo! LOL! ROFL!"

I went through this thought process SEVEN YEARS AGO, when i decided to stop using the phrase. I decided - if you aren't quick witted enough to come up with a decent innuendo, don't bother doing it at all, you've already failed, and by saying "that's what she said", you're just drawing attention to your failure.

It's bad enough that the american writers of the office stumbled across this relic of a joke and started smearing it all over the fucking place, repopularising the phrase amongst the great unwashed masses, but they did that in THE OFFICE of all fucking things! A show that, in its first form, was chock full of individuality, originality and blistering comedy.

Oh how low we've sunk.

Really?

I mean really?

You think this is going to be of some benefit to you, or help some sort of political argument you're trying to make?

Unbelievable.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, don't be angry, snookums. You know it was all in good fun. I didn't mean to aggravate the cognitive dissonance that has settled in your mind so thickly like years of dust settling in an untouched attic.

Thanks for playing! That's one for liberty. Zero for fascist Democracy.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
This is something interesting, and I wanted to gauge your response of the following 17 principle guidelines that are being bandied about right now. This is copied directly without being altered

Liar.

it's not a right winger writing down what he/she thinks a left winger wants. This was written by someone on the left, and it's not a joke I'm playing. I seriously want to know what people think of this document, and whether or not they agree it would be an improvement. NR, you've had a lot of great insight in PMs, and maybe you'd like to share those?

Liar, on both counts of "written by someone on the left" and "not a joke".

Incidentally, the word fraud means: an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

You are one, apparently.

I figured you were pulling a stunt originally, but after talking with you in PM's, I figured I'd trust that you were being straight up like you claimed, and then spent an hour giving this some real consideration, and posted my opinion.

Fuck you, jackass.

Oh, don't be angry, snookums. You know it was all in good fun. I didn't mean to aggravate the cognitive dissonance that has settled in your mind so thickly like years of dust settling in an untouched attic.

Thanks for playing! That's one for liberty. Zero for fascist Democracy.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
This is something interesting, and I wanted to gauge your response of the following 17 principle guidelines that are being bandied about right now. This is copied directly without being altered

Liar.

it's not a right winger writing down what he/she thinks a left winger wants. This was written by someone on the left, and it's not a joke I'm playing. I seriously want to know what people think of this document, and whether or not they agree it would be an improvement. NR, you've had a lot of great insight in PMs, and maybe you'd like to share those?

Liar, on both counts of "written by someone on the left" and "not a joke".

Incidentally, the word fraud means: an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

You are one, apparently.

I figured you were pulling a stunt originally, but after talking with you in PM's, I figured I'd trust that you were being straight up like you claimed, and then spent an hour giving this some real consideration, and posted my opinion.

Fuck you, jackass.

This is something interesting, and I wanted to gauge your response of the following 17 principle guidelines that are being bandied about right now. This is copied directly without being altered

Liar.

it's not a right winger writing down what he/she thinks a left winger wants. This was written by someone on the left, and it's not a joke I'm playing. I seriously want to know what people think of this document, and whether or not they agree it would be an improvement. NR, you've had a lot of great insight in PMs, and maybe you'd like to share those?

Liar, on both counts of "written by someone on the left" and "not a joke".

Incidentally, the word fraud means: an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

You are one, apparently.

I figured you were pulling a stunt originally, but after talking with you in PM's, I figured I'd trust that you were being straight up like you claimed, and then spent an hour giving this some real consideration, and posted my opinion.

Fuck you, jackass.

I have questioned my belief in Capitalism. I've often said if there's a better system, I'd be for it. I'm not convinced Socialism or any variation thereof is a better system. One of my good friends, a Marxist, has petitioned to me about the greatness of such a society. But, for that system to work you cannot question it, because once you do the proverbial house of cards comes crashing down around him. It's not that he doesn't explain it well. No, the contrary he's one of the smartest men I know. Has a Masters in Business Administration from Cambridge and hates Capitalism, as well.

But, one thin we agree on is that when people bandy about the term Capitalism, they really mean Corporatism. This isn't me creating an idealistic view of Capitalism by removing it from the association of Corporatism and large Industrialists. My largest fears rest in them.

It comes down to who owns the means of production. You believe it should belong to the workers, while I believe it should belong to whoever puts up the capital and takes the risk. I want to know how that is to happen without violence? How can we make a peaceful transition to Socialism? Beyond that, I don't find it moral to steal, and by remove power from individuals who "own" a company and give it to many, it is stealing. It would be like us revolting on VideoSift and taking the ownership of the site away from dag. It wouldn't be moral.

You asked, "When was the last time Ron Paul made an effort to curb corporate power?" He always votes against Corporatist interests. He strongly opposed the bailouts. He doesn't agree with government giving in to Corporatists and excluding smaller businesses, and so far his plane hasn't crashed in the sea. The health industry is a complete morass thanks to government "restrictions" which excludes smaller businesses from competing and practically handed that entire industry over to the Corporations. You think if some public option was passed the Corporations wouldn't be the ones to benefit? Government is the problem; not the solution.

You said, "You use the term 'government' as a pejorative, and consider democracy tyranny." And, yes, I do believe Democracy, when direct, is tyrannical. If 51% of the Christian population wanted to put prayer back in school, do you think it would be fair for your children if they had to pray in school because of it? Or if 51% of white people decided the minority races should be made into slaves? Direct Democracy is dangerous. How can it not be? Please explain to me how Democracy isn't 51% of the population taking the rights away from 49%?

And, I'm absolutely cynical of my government. Why shouldn't I be? We know they lie to us (Waco, Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc. etc. etc.), so why would I want them to have even more control over my life and my labor when they've proven to be beyond the capacity of trust? You Democrats are just like the Republicans. When your guy is in office, it's unpatriotic to go against government. But, when the other guy is in office, it's patriotic. You and NetRunner and KnivesOut and the other Social Dems on here didn't have a single problem with me when I was speaking against the Bush Administration, but let me say one cross word against Obama and I'm a heretic.

I ask for you to explain how Socialism would work. Give me an example how we could possibly make that transition.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday

"was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields)."

imho, there's a lot more to that story than is often bandied about... this may be seen as nitpicking, but the shah was 'already' in power when mossadeq tried kicking 'him' out -- also, mossadeq wasn't what we would call a 'popularly elected' prime minister - under iran's constitutional monarchy (the democracy you're referring to), the shah 'appointed' a prime minister (who if he already held a popularly elected post, must resign to accept the appointment), and then the iranian parliament (majlis) did a 'pro-forma' ratification

understanding this clearly would have your point being similar to saying that former supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor, was democratically elected

mossadeq's ousting had as much (or more) to do with his farcical referendum to dissolve iran's then-only-democratic governing body: the majlis... as it did with us fears of mossadeq's strengthening alliance with iran's communist party: the tudeh (tpi)... not to mention britain's (admittedly greed-driven) desire for revenge at iran's 'nationalizing' a fortune's worth of british refining equipment

"They can't be that stupid." KO, You vastly underestimate the depths of stupidity the GOP can dredge.

Anyone else getting sick of hearing "socialism" being bandied about as if it's a dirty word? Socialism != Communism no matter how hard the GOP tries to equate the two.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Groovy Dancing Girl, sophie merry, rotoscope, iPod, Bandy Toaster, irish, ireland' to 'Groovy Dancing Girl, sophie merry, rotoscope, iPod, Bandy Toaster, irish, justice, 00s' - edited by Eklek

I'm glad they took the word Freedom out of it. Freedom is a concept, a right and an ideal, and should be discussed maturely and preserved as such. It loses its strength when it's bandied about so frivolously. Anyone remember Freedom Fries and Freedom toast? SO glad that died off. (rolls eyes)

I'll just disagree briefly with your interpretation of what Solvent said - he said "alleged atrocities." There's no "maybe there was an atrocity or two, maybe there wasn't." At this point in history, given the staggering amount of documentary and testamentary evidence of the premeditated murder of millions of civilians for reasons of religion, race, politics, and sexual orientation, there can be no denying of the Holocaust.

As to applying the label of anti-semitism. I do think that someone is anti-semitic when they call for the destruction of the State of Israel. Now, I feel that plenty of people bandy about the anti-semitic label in the context of political criticism too easily - certainly the State of Israel is deserving of critique in a number of areas, none of which rise to the level of advocating its destruction.

Still, when people tell me that the Israelis are behaving like Nazis, or that Zionism is Nazism, I consider them anti-semitic, because I know what makes a Nazi a Nazi, and that practically everyone agrees that the Nazis were as pure evil as you can get, and had to be crushed with violence. If Nazi=Pure Evil and Israel=Nazi, then they must think that Israel=Pure Evil, then it seems evident that they think Israel should be destroyed.

If Israel is destroyed, many many many Jews die, who are not pure evil, and that, again, is anti-semitic.

Tomorrow I'll write up a response to your prior post, because I think you give a shit, and I know I give a shit, and probably some other people on here would actually prefer discussion instead of jingoism.

I cant help but be split on the issue.

On one hand you have the garunteed collapse of the currency and economy if you let them fall, and on the other, bailing them out is garunteeing corporate rot if you dont force them to change their ways.

They have been held up and floating with their heads held above the waterline for 30 years now, and its just made the ocean fettid, but society has been living off the corpse like bacteria and maggots.

To let it sink would be a disaster, but its a dead body anyway...so I mean, either way you go, you are still fucked.

Shitty situation tbh. GM, C and F need to have a radical re-think of the shit that they are pumping out to the US consumer market, and it seems about 40 years too late to have this conversation, but gas guzzling beasts sitting on 20mpg, while european equivilants are at 60-80mpg is just a joke.

When the politicians who claim to reflect public opinion bandy about the "oil independence" as public policy, you would think that reclaiming an economical auto industry would be priority #1, but noone cares....its all about keeping that dead body up.

Eventually dead bodies fall apart when connective tissues are all gone, and sink when the fat has been consumed.

What then America ?

Go eat some raisin *ban and leave me alone!

>> ^nibiyabi:
^Thinker, quit bandying about with these absurdly contrived posts.

^Thinker, quit *bandying about with these absurdly contrived posts.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'daft, punk, bandy, toaster' to 'french, justice, phantom, daft punk, bandy, toaster, sunset, 00s, sophie merry, silhouet' - edited by Eklek

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.

Whether or not you agree with Hamas' political mandate this is the Palestinian people's democratic right, and they elected Hamas to power based on that mandate. Oppressed nations always vote in the hard liners, this is how it has always been, this is why Northern Ireland now has the two extremist political parties sharing power.

It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.

There will never be peace with borders and checkpoints, boundary dissolution *is* the route to peace.

Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.

There is peace in Northern Ireland even though one of the sharing parties refuses to recognise the North of Ireland as British. This is a stable, tenable, peaceful political position with democratic support. Just as the British forces pulled out of the North of Ireland when this was achieved, so should Isreal have pulled out of Palestine when Hamas was elected- but they did not, and they continue to invade that country.

Many political charters around the world use strong extremist language, this is the way of the world, this is how democracy works, this is what political stability is all about.

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.