>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Trancecoach:
I dunno.. he seemed to demonstrate a bit of talent in Sweeney Todd and Hugo.
>> ^Payback:
Cohen is such a talentless whore.


And Ali G and Borat. You can't prank that many people and have someone accuse you of being talentless, whether you appreciate his work or not.


And of course, don't forget hit standout performance in Talladega Nights.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I dunno.. he seemed to demonstrate a bit of talent in Sweeney Todd and Hugo.
>> ^Payback:
Cohen is such a talentless whore.



And Ali G and Borat. You can't prank that many people and have someone accuse you of being talentless, whether you appreciate his work or not.

I dunno.. he seemed to demonstrate a bit of talent in Sweeney Todd and Hugo.

>> ^Payback:

Cohen is such a talentless whore.

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 4 Badge!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Dick move by SBC. Seacrest handled it about as well as could be expected.


>> ^MonkeySpank:

Seacrest took it well considering how humiliating it must have been on the red carpet. Shame on Sasha for such a shitty prank. He should pull that prank on the likes of Mike Tyson next time; that would have gone well.


Don't feel bad for Seacrest, he's in on it. Any time Sacha plays a "prank" like this on a celebrity, he gets their permission first. Ordinary people who can't afford lawyers to peruse silly vendettas are fair game.

Your video, Sacha Baron Cohen spills some Kim Jong-il on Ryan Seacrest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

oh, but they did.>> ^Payback:

Wow. I guess the Oscars might actually be good this time out if they're really not letting this fucktard in...

They're the Seacrest Service.>> ^critical_d:


The security guards hustling Cohen off is over the top....jesus...you would think they were Secret Service.

@GeeSussFreeK As Netrunner says, virtually nobody advocates specifically for statism. In theory, pretty much everyone can agree on the Libertarian principle of your rights end where mine begin. The trouble is a very widely ranging difference of opinion on where my rights and your rights begin to overlap.

I would propose though that the most extreme 'statists' of late would have to be the ranks of Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bashir Al-Assad, and Omar al-Bashir to name a very short list of those imposing the most rigid of adherence to the absolute power of the head of a state. If you oppose statism, at least to some degree the removal or end of such men holds common cause with your ideals, no?

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

I LUAGHED LOUDLY AT THIS

HA HA HA HA
_____!______


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Aww, don't ferr bad, rongde. It's just a rittre fun.

Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by doogle:
*promote because North Korea's fun time with Kim has come to an end.

1. Kim Jong Il, Steve Jobs and Andy Rooney will come back from the dead and form a Rush cover band. They will split up a year later to do mediocre solo projects.

>> ^Hybrid:

http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/
http://kimjongunlookingatthings.tumblr.com/


http://kimjongildroppingthebass.tumblr.com/