Thanks.
That's some good old ear candy.
Candy...tastes like chicken, if chicken was a candy.

truth is truth>> ^lurgee:

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^geo321:
this is awesome.

The whole Album is sweet sweet ear candy.

truth

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^geo321:
this is awesome.

The whole Album is sweet sweet ear candy.

this is the following bonus track.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^geo321:
this is awesome.

The whole Album is sweet sweet ear candy.

truth

>> ^geo321:

this is awesome.


The whole Album is sweet sweet ear candy.

They've got a nice tone, and I really dug the breakdown thing near the end.

I just posted a vid of a talented buddy of mine that you'd probably enjoy:
http://videosift.com/video/Junk-Side-Cinema-Always-Ends-the-Same

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Thought you might like some more sweet sweet ear-candy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Saybia-The-Day-after-Tomorrow-music-video

Thought you might like some more sweet sweet ear-candy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Saybia-The-Day-after-Tomorrow-music-video

Not saying she's the person to vote for, but to say that "there's nothing there" is both inaccurate and disingenous.

No it's not.
"Nothing there" doesnt mean she's not doing what the talking points says, or even that she doesnt agree with them, it just means that she doesn't THINK when she gets a question. Its so bleeding obvious you'd have to be blind to miss it. She simply repeats some conservative mantras that frequently has nothing to do with the question she was asked.. If you look at any other politicians, even George W. Bush, you can atleast trust that he answers the questions he gets asked, even if those answers are lies or just plain fucking stupid) ie: "Bring 'em on" ) atleast he could usually cough up an actual answer. Palin does none of that, she replies with talking points that often shows she doesnt even understand the question. look at this answer:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Now what the fuck does this even mean? Random rambling about tax-cuts and "job creation". Obviously, her answer should have been something like "Because if these big institutions fail, it will be worse for everyone, and heres why:---" But because she doesnt really even consider the question, she just makes up an answer with some conservative ear-candy in there and , as was said, there really is nothing there.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Tim-Christensen-Whispering-at-the-top-of-my-lungs
more danish ear candy.

Beautiful ear candy AND eye candy. I should be allowed to vote for this twice.