Can't help but imagine rabbit ears and whiskers flailing as he gesticulates! Perhaps it's his penchance to take his viewers down the Rabbit Hole of some social misjustice. I know he does explore further into these topics on a separate podcast...they are still Gordian knots which will convince no opponent.

I can't help but be disappointed at him having such a crap voice. It would've been spectacular if after all the silly gesticulation and laughing it turned out he sang a mind-blowing, tear-wrenching rendition of the piece.

You find the naked man shouting and gesticulating on the street 'highly suspicious'? Do tell...>> ^kir_mokum:

i actually find this highly suspicious.

Oops. Thought I had been more clear than that in my previous explanation. In fact on rereading it I'm fairly convinced that I was. I'll restate my position in different terms to maybe clear up the confusion.

I suspect the kernel of our misunderstanding lies in your previous post. Thank you for helping me to crystallize my view.
"Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away. "

A-Obama uses religion for political reasons.
B-Santorum would implement policy for religious reasons.

I don't think I can make it much more clear than that. I would immensely prefer that religion be mishandled in the pursuit of politics, than the country be mishandled in the pursuit of religion. If that means I'm a hypocrite, than I proudly am.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.
Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.
Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.
Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.
And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.
Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.

Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.

Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.

Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.

And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.

Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

And what people learn in church is how to be sheep

This is a common neolib conceit. While there are myriad foibles, prejudices, and issues with religion as a whole - it cannot be argued that the principles taught by religous organizations (love one another, do unto others, turn the other cheek, go with him twain, good samaritan, et al) are precisely the sort of thing that will achieve the effect you purport to advocate (focus on welfare of others). Now - you may personally disagree with religion and that's fine. But I ask now for you to seriously consider what other source this sort of mindset is going to originate from if not the home and family?

Such sentiment certainly does not come from humanism, or secularism, or any other philosophy of men. It does not come from government. It does not come from public school. It does not come from 'community organization'. There is not a single aspect of leftist teaching, learning, or philosophy that encourages human beings to become 'good people'. That is the pervue of home, family, and religion.

So while you don't respect such things, you say that you want the values that family/church advocate to permeate society. A funny little muddle. I'm personally glad that I don't have to engage is such gesticulations of hypocrisy in order to have a moral base. I merely have to advocate that people become better, more perfect practicioners of their faith. All the needs of society can be easily, simply met by giving people their freedom, removing the onerous burden of government over-regulation & taxation - and then encouraging them to pursue their own self-interest as enlightned by their religion & morality they learned from their family.

>> ^Mi1ler:

they lost me at there is a black way and a white way, where within the context of his parellelism black is bad and white is good, now that this happened int he first 60sec is not a great sign.


Actually he gesticulated with his left hand for "god's way", "the good way" and the "black way". He likes to use his right hand to gesticulate for satan

Are you allowed to make fun of someone for having a big round head like a pink lump of dough, a hideous moon face, little beady rat eyes (albeit a lovely blue) and train tracks on his teeth which cause a slurping sound when he talks? Also he's ranting and raving and gesticulating into the camera like a lunatic about some perceived persecution?

Thank fucking god Youtube wasn't around when I was young and full of hormones.

I always make sense, and Obama is a far-left radical. It isn't hyperbole. It is unequivocal fact. His agenda items are all leftist radical wet-dreams. Cap & trade. Universal health care. Government ownership of businesses. His background & education? Radical left wing. His heroes & mentors? Radical left wing. His preachers and colleagues? Radical left wing. If it's educated by ducks, associates with ducks, and all its policies are ducks then just MAYBE it's a duck. When a duck is a duck, it isn't 'hyperbole' to call it a duck. When a man governs like a far left radical, then it isn't hyperbole to call him a far left radical.

Now - I know for a fact that the far left radicals of the U.S. don't think Obama is radical ENOUGH. HuffPo, KoS, DU and all the radical left wing blogs are desperately buzz buzz buzzing about the Brown election. The mental gesticulations - the absolute warping of fact & reality - that they are spewing out is amazing.

According to the radical left, Obama was elected by a country of far-left leaning independants and progressives so that he could change America into Euro-Socio-Rouge-land and try everyone they disagree with as war criminals. Obama didn't make that happen - and THAT is why independants voted for Brown. Oh - I see - so a bunch of far-left indie voters didn't get ENOUGH radical left wing policies enacted and so they decided to vote for a guy who ran on a platform that was DIAMETRICALLY opposed to their own? Ooookaaaaay... :cuckoo!:

Brown has made no bones about it. He's pro-life, anti-global warming, anti-universal health care, and pretty much "anti" everything the radical left wants. Croakley was everything the radical left wanted. She was a rubber stamp for abortion, universal health care, immigration amnesty, cap & trade - the whole ball of wax.

And so these geniuses on the left wing blogs expect everyone to believe that left wing voters were so angry because they didn't get ENOUGH far left radical agenda passed that they pulled the metaphysical equivalent of voting Rush Limbaugh into office. Yeah. Right... B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b

Tags for this video have been changed from 'boxxy' to 'boxxy, youtube, gesticulations, online, avatar, hyped up, eyeliner, 00s, bla' - edited by Eklek

I think I know what the director said right before he rolled cameras.

"Okay people, we're gonna shoot this whole title sequence in a couple takes. This next shot is the master so we're gonna loop the song for a couple minutes. I want everyone to gesticulate like a fucking jerkoff. The main thing is to display a complete lack of co-ordination and rhythmn, so that you're as unthreatening as possible to the potato-heads in middle America. Just make yourself look like the lamest white douchebags possible. After this we'll shoot inserts where you can really bring the cheese. Roll cameras. Music please. Remember, keep it spastic. Aaaand.. ACTION!"

FWIW I love this show.

>> ^fissionchips:
I feel dumber for having listened to D'Souza. Deafer too; could he stop yelling for five seconds?

heh. was the first thing i noticed.
keep watchin'. gets better.
i'm playlisting them all now, and updating this embed.

D'Souza spends the entire debate shouting, quickly, while gesticulating, switching hands on the mike, shifting his weight, constantly in motion.
and i don't think most of you need me to explain why. dannyboy sure doesn't, nor does he bother to point it out.

this is Dennett giving somber testimony, and D'Souza trying to sell a used car.

Something about its gesticulation strikes me as unnatural.