Your Blurred Lines Parody's embed is a playlist. Try this http://youtu.be/J3twwafch4g

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sanford and son, thicke, blurred lines' to 'sanford and son, thicke, blurred lines, Redd Foxx' - edited by Trancecoach

This is the video being parodied.

NSFW for language. This is not the clean version that's been on the radio.

Icona Pop - I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [OFFICIAL VIDEO]
http://youtu.be/UxxajLWwzqY

At first parody song made me think it was going to be a "Blurred Lines" spoof.

Your video, Three mics and a guitar, Blurred Lines cover by Duke, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

Vimeo description: So as "blurred lines" shoots to number one everywhere I thought it would be nice to show some love to the real star of the show Emily Ratajkowski! It is a great song but I felt we didn't see enough of her! Please enjoy my edit of the video.

Is the other also the edited version or the original blurred lines video?

Sorry dude, but *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Blurred-Lines

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Barseps. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Reminds me of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Blurred-Lines

Give me a break, this is an issue that solely consists of a new perspective and appreciation for LIFE. A basic value. A basic condition. Ron Paul is Pro-Contraceptives, not pro killing a developed child. Its always going to be a controversial issue and a blurred line, he says this 30 seconds later. You are a fool to take this out of context like this and not to appreciate the full richness of this conversation. This is a great interview with a lot of great insight into the might of a potential candidate. Shame on you videosift, shame on you youtube, shame on you people who support the debauchers clipping this interview.

Rape happens, its tragic, but contraceptives are readily available for everyone. Would you rather run down to the store and buy a $30 pill the day after or tragically kill a fetus for $400+ Grow some sense people.

The paradigm is crumbling, every president since Ike has been the same piece of shit, out for empire, against everything but the mission; Systematic, Coop D'Etat, of the entire planet. Wake up imbeciles, grow eyes to hear $ ears to read between the blurred lines. Anyone passionate about the United States should be constantly questioning anything she belches that screams, "extreme lack of common sense."

Editorials, however eloquently composed and performed, do noting but blur the underlying realities of the world we all have to suffer. Hope and change comes from monkeys taking their heads out of their asses.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Atheists don't believe in religion. If you put yourself in the non-religious/secular/non-practicing category, you are an atheist.

False, fallacious and fractious. Take this as an analogy: Bananas are not vegetables. If it is yellow/long/edible, it is not a vegetable.

Atheists don't believe in gods; the word itself precludes such a belief. "Non-religious" and "non-practicing" do not preclude a belief. I agree that the categories are not complete, but this definition of atheism has problematically blurred lines.

>> ^doogle:
I'm saying McCain ain't necessarily wrong to point to Ahmedinejad. IMHO it's not an unreasonable conclusion considering the blurred lines of the power heads in some countries.


We're not talking about "some countries", we're talking about a country Bush and McCain want to go to war with.

McCain isn't supposed to be just an average American, he wants to be the Commander in Chief, and the political head of our government.

We're talking about who has control of the military of Iran, and who's in charge of their nuclear program.

Experts say it's not blurry, it's Ayatollah Khamenei.

That doesn't mean McCain "ain't necessarily wrong", it means McCain either doesn't know who Khamenei is, or thinks there's a good reason to browbeat a reporter for the merest suggestion that there is more than one person in the government of Iran.

If McCain knew who the guy was, why not say "You make a good point, but I'm still against diplomacy with anyone from the Iranian government because..." and then behind the scenes go "ya know, Ayatollah Khamenei is a scarier name, and I'm sure he's said bad stuff about Israel, next time let's see if we can't incorporate him and quotes from in our speech..."

Instead, his response made it pretty clear he didn't have the faintest clue who Khamenei was, and arrogantly proclaimed the questioner must be wrong.

That confident ignorance is the other main element of the video, I would say.

McCain didn't just say 2 + 2 = 5 on camera, he continued on insisting that despite mathematicians saying 2 + 2 = 4, he's still right about 2 + 2 equalling 5, and tried to ridicule mathematicians for saying otherwise.

It's this willful denial of inconvenient facts that is the most poisonous aspect of the Bush regime, and McCain is signaling here that he intends to mimic that aspect as well.

Kronos -
I wasn't speaking to your tongue-in-cheek posting - I was speaking to the video. But do keep your satire - I read it there.

You, and the journalist, have made your points - Ahmedinejad isn't the head of Iran. You're both right and I don't dispute that. And I support it as well, as my examples have as well. I'm saying McCain ain't necessarily wrong to point to Ahmedinejad. IMHO it's not an unreasonable conclusion considering the blurred lines of the power heads in some countries.

JAPR, here is where I disagree with you (and the description above of atheist) and why I don't think it fits into your explanation.

I define being an atheist as "not believing the "evidence" that has been presented to me about "god(s)".

"god(s) do not exist, as per the evidence provided to me"

No one had to "teach" me how to be an atheist. So just because I do not believe what different religions have presented to me, I am labeled an atheist. While we all start off with no theistic beliefs, As rottenseed so aptly (and eloquently) pointed out "Not knowing is different then knowing naught." But therin lies a blurred line.

imagine a kid. "not knowing" of any theistic thoughts.(how we start)

then someone approaches the kid with the idea of the trinity god. now just because that kid does not buy into their "stories and beliefs", the kid is labeled an Atheist (knowing naught). (how you described in your first post)

But that same religious person can be confronted by 1 million other religions and come to the same conclusion (not believing in the evidence the "other" religions present).

so what is the word for that ? as far as I knwo there is none.

But I assert it is a form of atheism, (religous folks get out of that label cause they always use "god" in a grand sense (only to their own religion), never in a specific sense, as in "why yes, I believe in the god of the OT (or NT, or Koran, or Book of Mormon... I should name something other than the abrahimic religions)...