Bunch of nothings complaining about a nothing guy getting more attention than them. Welcome to the contemporary entertainment industry.

Contemporary commentary on the second amendment indicates that people at the time considered that it guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Our Supreme Court ruled that that is the correct interpretation.

Easy. I could extend my list to a hundred for a sentence this long. I was prepping for the shortest sentence in the english language: Go.

1.You are clearly biased towards the English language. I guess people who don't speak English are shit out of luck, right Shepppard?

2. You are clearly biased towards standard contemporary western sentence structure. E.E. Cummings need not apply.

3.You are clearly biased towards whimsy, completely excluding seriousness from the debate. When you are ready to take the lampshade off your head, let me know.

4. You are biased towards making yourself the subject of the sentence. ME. ME. ME. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

5. You are biased in favor of commas and periods I see. You've relegated poor Mr. exclamation point to just a parenthetical afterthought, while poor Mr. Question mark is nowhere to be seen.

6. You are biased in favor of writing about animals. SPECIES TRAITOR!

7. Your are biased in favor of using the word fuzzy as an adjective to describe said animals, when furry, fluffy, frizzy, nappy, wooly, hairy or hirsute would have sufficed.

8. You are biased in favor of using the words 'not fuzzy' to describe said animals, when not furry,not fluffy,not frizzy,not nappy,not wooly,not hairy or unhirsute would have sufficed.

9. You are biased in favor of using compound sentences when a simple sentence would have worked just as well, which would have saved us all a lot of time, which we could have used to do important things like cure cancer and sift videos, but now that time is gone thanks to your overly, overly, overly, overly, overly, overly long compound sentence.

10. Lastly, you are biased in favor of writing sentences in response to absurd challenges from strange persons on the internet trying to make the point that every action you take is subtle prejudice against all of the other actions you didn't take. Every word you chose to use in your sentence shows bias against the words you didn't choose to use. The precise moment that you hit submit on your comment was an inadvertent disenfranchisement of the many other moments that might have appreciated the honor of time stamping your achievement.

It's biases all the way down.

>> ^artician:

I find that culture like this disgusts me, and the perspectives held by those within are vapid and illegitimate.


Well then sir, I find you fit for active duty and responsible for any corrections of non-beneficial rifts created in the time continuum that are within your capacity to correct.

You are hereby ordered to refrain from copulation which may lead to procreation!

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
*quality

I friggin' love this kinda stuff: http://videosift.com/video/Five-Contemporary-Portraits-of-Modern-Teenage-Girls

Different culture, different times, different aesthetic values. There is plenty of virtuostic writing and playing in contemporary styles. Is it musical? Does it add to the whole of the piece? I'd say yes to both in this case.

Lyrics:
The ocean, too, appears to swallow
the vessel that you see
shattered by the storm.

Then it reappears, and it seems
to be raised by the stars.

>> ^Januari:

Ok... she is pretty amazing... but what an absurd song... You can pretty much tell that some composer decided... "'I'm going to write this to sound ridiculous hard to sing... as well as pretty much just sounding ridiculous...".
I don't know... maybe someone with an ear for opera can tell me i'm crazy but find listening to that painful.

Issy confirms that Oppa is a respectful term for an older brother, though she doesn't know what it means in contemporary South Korean slang. I'm thinking it might be like 'brotha' in English slang, or what RevT says.

The girl he dances with (with the orange streaks in her hair) is Kim Hyun-a, a multi-talented celebrity in Korea. I couldn't find a cast list on google for the rest of the crew. Nothing on IMDB.

I like Louis CK, but I just had a small realization that he's not making his comedy for people like us, who are right there with him, flabbergasted at other peoples behavior and the world that creates for us. I think this is the first skit where I realized he's making this stuff for all the assholes. The ones that make life such a shitty place, and show them how their decisions and behavior trickle into everyone's lives eventually.

It maybe that I'm the only person who didn't realize this, but it just jumped Louis up another mega-level in terms of respect in my mind. Maybe that's not his true intent with all his comedy, but it certainly seems like it with this piece, and wow, he really does think far outside the realms of contemporary storytelling for what he wants to do with his work. Much respect for artists who want to better the world.

No to be too unkind, but could anything better symbolise contemporary British contribution to world affairs?

I've been reading Schama's "Citizens" on the French Revolution and the lead-up to it, and I have found it quite interesting to compare parallels between Louis XVI's France and contemporary U.S.A. It's actually a bit scary that the language being used is so similar in both cases, given what happened after 1791.

For instance, my initial comparison between Ron Paul and free market reformer Turgot is, I think, reasonably fair doesn't reflect badly on Paul. Although Turgot ended up losing his job after rushing through his reform program and some of his reforms were reversed in the short term, others were retained or re-instated in a slightly altered form a few years later.

So anyway, which of Paul's policies were you referring to as having potential to improve the U.S.? You're right that I haven't studied it in depth, and my background is not political science or media studies, but I have read the various related discussions on the sift and in the local and U.K. media.

quoting Wiki:

While there are a number of versions to the Bible. There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek
Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin
Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.
King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text
New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version. Another good contemporary English version is New King James Version (NKJV)
The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_Bible#ixzz1z4GtYcTU

>> ^bobknight33:

So you are saying that this shit would have happened back in the 50's and 60's when society was more conservative? Sure the kids might have thought the things but would have the proper respect not to say shit.
Once again ignorant fools like you shame this community.


Please refrain from name calling bobknight33, you are ironically rehearsing the same typical traits of a bully when you do that.

And as for your arguments, I agree with you that historical context may have conjured a different picture in this situation, but I disagree with your original argument about how a specific government policy is totally wrong and destructive to society. Abuse against outsiders took place throughout US history unrelated to any specific government policy. Children got bullied when they wore glasses, children got bullied when they had funny teeth, children got bullied when their family was poor.

Those old conservative morals held many beliefs that were just as harmful to their society as all the ironies and misguided policies of our contemporary society holds today. Christians bullied other other Christians in the name of loyalty, women were seen as lower class beings, musicians were seen as indecent and cast out from society. In fact bullying was more prevalent and consequences were often much more brutal in those days. Bullying against people of different race often led to physical violence, and even death during the 50s.


If you just focus on children's respect for adults throughout US history, then you could make the argument that liberalism downplayed authority of adults over children. But certainly conservative societies of the 50s weren't any better in terms of bullying. I will reserve the topic of 'changes in social dynamic between adult and children relations in coordination with changes in governmental policies' for you since I think this was actually your specific idea from the beginning.

^same here. it's bothered me for a long time and also helped me understand the many fallacies of contemporary feminism. that's not to say women have nothing to complain about but the idea that it's gender vs. gender is ridiculous.