What I hear is him forcing himself to try and put Freddy Mecurys Quirks into the song, making a lot of it seem slightly.. well, unnatural.

His voice is damn near spot on, but the way he flows through it.. it doesn't have Freddys.. I don't know, Flamboyancy? Heart? Soul?

I can just picture Freddy singing this hunched over, eyes closed, singing his heart out into his mic, and that seems to be what's missing.

I for one approve of this flamboyant use of taxpayer's dollars. Actually, I think we should raise taxes on the top 1% just to get more footage like it.



_{remember that film crew they sent into a black hole?}
>> ^rottenseed:

It's shit like this NASA...wasting hard-earned tax payer money just to destroy it retrieving this footage

The Big Lie About The Great Depression

Ben Shapiro

In her vital and fascinating new book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," Amity Shlaes tells a story about national icon President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Shortly after FDR took office, Shlaes explains, he began arbitrarily tinkering with the price of gold. "One day he would move the price up several cents; another, a few more," writes Shlaes.

One particular morning, Shlaes relates, FDR informed his "brain trust" that he was considering raising the price of gold by 21 cents. His advisers asked why 21 cents was the appropriate figure. "It's a lucky number," stated Roosevelt, "because it's three times seven." Henry Morgenthau, a member of the "brain trust," later wrote: "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened."

Ignorance of basic economics — and the concurrent attempt to obfuscate that ignorance by employing class-conscious demagoguery — remains the staple of the Democratic Party. For over 60 years, Democrats and their allies in the media and public school system have taught that the Great Depression was an inevitable result of laissez-faire economic policies, and that only the Keynesian policies of the FDR government allowed America to emerge from the ashes. The Great Depression, for the left, provides conclusive proof that when it comes to economics, government works better than business.

This point of view has a sterling reputation. That reputation, unsurprisingly, was created by FDR himself. FDR turned the Great Depression into a morality play — a morality play in which those in favor of individual initiative were the sinners, while those who relied on government were the saints. "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals," Roosevelt intoned in 1937. "We know now that it is bad economics."

This, as Shlaes convincingly shows, is hogwash. The Depression lasted nearly a decade longer than it should have, due almost entirely to governmental meddling under both Herbert Hoover and FDR. High tariffs and government-sponsored deflation followed by enormous taxation and unthinkable government expenditures turned a stock market stumble into a decade-long nightmare. Only the devastation of World War II lifted America out of the mire, solving the drastic unemployment problem and providing a legitimate medium for FDR's pre-war wartime policies.

Nonetheless, the myth of a grinning FDR leading America forth from the soup kitchens remains potent.
And today's Democrats rely desperately on that fading falsehood, hoping to bolster their bad economics with worse history. Hillary Clinton routinely hijacks Rooseveltian language, most recently disparaging the "on your own society" in favor of a "we're all in it together society." John Edwards' "two Americas" nonsense drips of FDR's class warfare. Never mind that Keynesian economics does not work. Never mind that it promotes unemployment, discourages investment and quashes entrepreneurship. For Democrats, the image of government-as-friend is more important than a government that actually protects the rights that breed prosperity.

"The impression of recovery — the impression that a President was bending the old rules and, drawing upon his own courage and flamboyance in adversity and illness, stirring things up on behalf of the down-and-out — mattered more than any miscalculations in the moot mathematics of economics," novelist-cum-economist John Updike recently wrote, defending FDR from Shlaes' critique. "Business, of which Shlaes is so solicitous, is basically merciless, geared to maximize profit. Government is ultimately a human transaction, and Roosevelt put a cheerful, defiant, caring face on government at a time when faith in democracy was ebbing throughout the Western world. For this inspirational feat he is the twentieth century's greatest President, to rank with Lincoln and Washington as symbolic figures for a nation to live by."

For Updike and his allies, image trumps reality. The supposed harshness of the business world matters more for Updike than the fact that profit incentives promote economic growth, efficiency and creativity. The "caring face" of government is more important for Updike than creating a framework that produces jobs and affordable commodities. Updike's sporadically employed father liked FDR because FDR made him feel "less alone." No doubt Updike's father would have felt less alone if he had been steadily employed by a private enterprise — the kind of enterprise stifled by Roosevelt.

"We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal," FDR announced in 1937, as unemployment stood at 15 percent, "and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world." Today's Democrats continue to embrace the vision, even at the cost of a prosperous reality.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

f word, I messed up, he even said he hadn't read the books. my bad I'll redact it. Honestly, I can't remember his fate based on the books so really I'm not even positive what happens.. nothing spoiled! I promise! (Good thing I didn't go into detail regarding other things like I almost did - I almost went on a rant frenzy but held back) sorry about that!

I pictured Syrio as more of skinny mystical figure. sort of tall, thin, and flamboyant. definitely not as a regular looking guy.. he's from a different world really.. (figuratively speaking)

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Dammit residue! ponceleon's comment is only one sentence long! AAAaarrrggghhh! I'm curious though, how did you picture him? He seems pretty "Inigo Montoya" to me as far as the TV series goes.
Ezno, the TV series hasn't really come off like that IMO. The nobility (the decent ones you're supposed to be rooting for anyway) seem to come off as fairly understanding. Does what you're talking about come later, or am I just missing it?

bcglorf, you are a profound idiot, and I hope all of your children grow up flamboyantly, openly gay, and that they have gay sex all over your bed.

This boy's future is shrouded in flamboyance

Quite honestly, my theory is that people don't have a problem with homosexuality per se, it's that perception that homosexuality = weakness. It's that gender role reversal that has people scared IMO where boys act like girls and girls act like men. In all honesty. That's one thing I still don't really get about homosexuality. What exactly about being homosexual makes a man TALK like a girl? In all honesty, it's that stereotypical flamboyant, effeminate "fabulous" archetype that freaks people out. Chances are, you know someone who is homosexual but they simply act straight so you don't even know it. It's that perception that all homosexuals secretly dress up in BDSM attire and are fabulous interior decorators.

It's the same damned thing with black people. which stereotype causes the most fear for the average american? The assimilated black person who talks like a white person, or the guy dressed as a gangster with heavy ebonics-laden speech? IMO being black per se, or being homosexual per se has almost nothing to do with it. If a straight man started acting flamboyant and effeminate, people would be freaked out about that too. Kids with no strong male role models are perceived to be momma's boys and are picked on...it's the same thing.

Fight those stereotypes and I bet you anything people would accept homosexuality a lot more.

>> ^robdot:

i just dont understand why so many people care what gay people are doing? who gives a fuck? dont we all have other things to worry about? why do these people spend so much time concerned about who someone else loves?

I thought it was pretty funny, not as good as the karate instructor one, But this gay flamboyant character sort of reminded me of rob reiner and made loler.

In reply to this comment by Xax:
That was almost worth it to see Jim break character. Almost.

Don't forget about good tags too. Make them a combination of simple (for description) and flamboyant (to attract attention).

One thing that they don't realise is that many of the older games DID have "gay" aspects to em. It wasn't uncommon for games made in japan (ie, most of them) to contain both risque images (girls with the tank tops in final fight) to flamboyant designed characters which eventually get replaced or removed in the American release. Same thing happened with anime back in the day when it was outfitted for american cable tv. Scenes featuring characters that clearly liked the same gender (or some other perversion) often had lines changed, or the scene was just cut.

Sad day when a man who bashed homosexuals for being gay is himself bashed for gay tendencies... (Can someone flamboyantly say, "Sarcasm!")

Reminds me of that kid rock song about "starting an escort service for all the wrong reasons, get a flannel sweater for all the four seasons..."

Seriously though, he needs slapped on his cheek... and not his but-cheeks by some escort boy...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Bashes tea party? Another case of flamboyant titles?


Definitely; could you tone down the title? I'd hate to have someone who doesn't view the video and just reads the headline think that.

Bashes tea party? Another case of flamboyant titles? Anywho, isn't most of this kind of expected really? As more people become attracted to something the more the main stream of ideas creep in...it is why intellectual movements are hard to keep going. While slightly disappointing to be shunned by a group that you used to get a fair amount of support from, the fact is the "tea party" is hardly solidified in any sort of political idealism. In that, I think you will see both parties try to swoop in and associate themselves with it, then try to become defacto representatives of it and thusly galvanize it into a unified vision.

When I first heard that we were making fun of a Brazilian, I thought we were going to point and laugh at dag's crotch. Unfortunately, we're just roasting some nobody from Sector 7G. Or should I say Xavier's School for Mutants?

His favorite memory is "snowboarding or the birth of my daughter." Is it really that hard to decide between the two? I'd love to see you on a game show, deciding between the million dollars or a mentally-retarded cat that urinates on itself and howls at the ceiling.

God, I can tell this roast is going to be drier than peggedbea's vagina.

Speaking of pussies, where is blankfist in all of this? Probably off making another shitty movie with Uwe Boll and Adam Sandler. He's gone Hollywood (a.k.a. on his knees under Steven Spielberg's desk).

But enough about the child rapist. I guess I should get back to Wolverine's flamboyantly gay cousin.

Let's talk about your obsession with Sifty. It's unhealthy, and we all know you're just trying to get a ruby or diamond. God, girls will do anything for jewelry.

Enough of this shit. I've mocked enough people, and I'm tired of thinking of insults for someone who doesn't have a completely fucked up life. So until gwiz is roasted, I'm out of here.