Solid Obama impersonation.

Holy shit that was funny. Also that was a really good impersonation.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 7 Badge!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/20/paul-ryan-argued-for-the-stimulus-when-it-was-bushs-idea

The Stranger blog agrees with you.
Excerpt: Apparently, Chris Hayes is MSNBC's newest Rachel Maddow impersonator?


>> ^VoodooV:

I don't disagree with the reporter, but why does he sound exactly like Maddow?

@1:06 is only Mulder impersonating Scully's voice.

They should release dozens of "diplomatic pouches" (actually crates, big enough for a human to fit inside), only 30 seconds or so apart, while at the same time, hundreds of impersonators just walk about in front of the embassy, and surrounding streets, creating a huge confusion for the police. Meanwhile, other impersonators leave the embassy at the same time. Some through the door, others through the windows to pretend they are actually Assange trying to escape.

Previous to all that, Assange would have called a press meeting, to announce his surrender to the british authorities.

In the middle of the confusion, Assange, with black hair, slightly tanned, prosthetic nose and what not, comes out of the embassy pretending to be a reporter, with another person holding a camera pretending to be his camera-man. OR... he was in the first crate all along, and with the confusion he actually manages to escape because the police loses focus. The crate could actually contain a false bottom where he could hide if they actually got around to open it.


Or plan B: Assange, simply strolls out the door at any given minute, as if nothing was wrong, not even trying to be sneaky. He would be like Capt. Speirs in Band of Brothers.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Doctor Who, Dr Who' to 'Doctor Who, Dr Who, dalek, karen gillan, impersonation, amy pond' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

God, I love her


..and how can you not?!

I upvoted for the script. Wish there had been even a slight attempt to sound like Palin. Putting on a pair of glasses does not a Palin impersonator make.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

Of course there is a fundamental dichotomy between chance and design. Let's look at the definitions:

Chance

: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck -an outcome decided by chance-

c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind -he designed the perfect crime- b : to have as a purpose : intend -she designed to excel in her studies- c : to devise for a specific function or end -a book designed primarily as a college textbook-

A design was deliberately caused by a mind, whereas chance just happens. Either existence as we know it was deliberately caused by a mind, or it wasn't. Whether the Universe is deterministic and things had to happen this way has no bearing, because that says nothing for the reason of the original configuration, or how it got that way. Either there is no particular reason and it just happened to be that way, or it was set into motion by an intelligence. Design is planned and chance is unplanned, and that is the dichotomy.

If you want to speak about what is arbitrary, then you have to consider that everything is equally unlikely from the standpoint of one who is unsure about everything. You may suspect there is a truth, because things appear to happen for a reason, but be unable to grasp it. This is like a black hole for the mind, and there is no escape from uncertainty.

You have to make a couple of assumptions to even begin to reason. The first is that you are real. The second is that the Universe is not inherently deceptive. The first, because you cannot reason without assuming you exist, and so assuming the contrary will only lead to absurdity. The second, because again, if you cannot trust anything then you cannot trust your own thoughts either. Therefore, you have no route to reason and again it leads to absurdity.

This isn't to say you couldn't be deceived about the Universe. It is to say that there is always some route to the truth. Therefore, the truth is something tangible and can be grasped. However, you are still in the quandary of being a subjective being with limited knowledge. There may be a route to the truth, but it requires you to be omnipotent. This is where most people stop and say, well, we just can't ever know what the truth is, but this isn't true. Even if you are not omnipotent, an omnipotent being could tell you what the truth is. That's my claim.

God is also the simplest explanation for everything, which can account for absolutely everything we see, feel, or experience, and that is precisely why some people don't like it. They don't want an ultimate answer like God because He interferes with their personal autonomy. They want to be free to imagine that it could be any number of things, so therefore they have the ultimate freedom to live however they please. To say there is any particular answer, especially a personal one, restricts their personal freedom and makes them accountable to specific outcomes.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

Well, you've agreed with me that God could reveal Himself to someone in such a way as they could be absolutely certain about it. Such a person could justifiably consider all other outcomes to be absolutely impossible, and be absolutely certain about that. That's my claim. Can I prove that I am that person, even to myself? Not entirely, but I have faith that it is true. This is not a blind faith, it is faith based on my personal relationship with God, which is experiential. Faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, because although I do not see God with my eyes, His Spirit dwells within me.

I do believe there is another supernatural power in this world, a kingdom of darkness which is a lesser power, but powerful enough to deceive human beings. Satan does want you to believe in God; the wrong God. Satan actually doesn't care what you believe, so long as it isn't in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another reason is that I have personal experience with demons; I have been around demon possessed people, and I have spoken to them when they manifested themselves in those people. They are professional liars (actors), the like you have not imagined.

It comes back to the Universe being inherently deceptive. You can't reason that way; you have to believe there is a route to truth. Neither can Satan completely deceive you; God gives everyone the opportunity to know the truth and to break free of their slavery to sin.


>> ^jmzero

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Sagemind:




?

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

We need more impersonations of famous "proper" figures reciting gangsta rap.. that just never ceases to amuse me.

For the record, I believe blankfist is in on this still. Just so you understand where my suspicion is coming from, the day after I outed his last sockpuppet I got strange area code hang ups on my phone and a text asking if I was 'mypasswordispretty'. I pressed the texter for more details and he said the number had been posted on reddit, though there was no record of the number or account when I got home to check. With such suspicious timing, think it's fair to assume there is a connection. Shortly after this the cat crew got going and left comments for both issy and I, which I found odd.

Also, if you compare youtube comments to VS comments, playhouse pals appears to be doing a bad impersonation of his youtube counterpart, not to mention the disparity in volume of comments.

youtube comments over the past year.

http://www.youtube.com/comment_search?so=date&q=RockyBDemilleFan

Videosift comments over the last week.

http://videosift.com/usercomments/PlayhousePals

And what about this guy?...
http://videosift.com/talk/Blankfists-new-sock-puppets?loadcomm=1#comment-1432626

Anyway, just thought I'd add my opinion on all this.