Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pink, Raise Your Glass' to 'Pink, Raise Your Glass, Rosie the Riveter' - edited by calvados

Little rosy jellybeans...

It's blood. They're only feeding the babies raw liver. >> ^Nebosuke:

Are they just rosy or do they have tomato sauce smeared on their faces?

Maybe it's blood, which could explain the missing sock.

>> ^Nebosuke:

Are they just rosy or do they have tomato sauce smeared on their faces?

Are they just rosy or do they have tomato sauce smeared on their faces?

Watch out Rosie O'Donnell!

Insightful analysis. If Mubes Inc. really isn't going to continue running the scene from behind the throne, it will be the muslims taking over. Lesser or greater evil.


>> ^NirnRoot:

I wish I saw as rosy a picture as mainstream media portrays, but I can't. The popular uprising may not have been in the plans of Mubarak's regime, but he and his cronies still managed to come out of it largely unscathed. Democracy? When Sulemain remains as sitting president? He shares all of Mubarak's undemocratic worldview and there is no evidence he will leave power in September.
The Egyptian army has been favorably portrayed in this revolution because it didn't fire on the protesters, but -despite a few words to the contrary- they didn't really side with them either. Oh sure, there may have been some solidarity between the average soldier and the common protester, but none of them broke ranks. Rather, the military elite stayed stolidly in Mubarak's camp and disciplined. The army played "good cop" while Mubarak's internal police forces - disguised as plainclothes Mubarak supporters- were the "bad cop" in the equation. To further heighten the tension, Mubarak then pulled back the legitimate cops so criminals could operate openly. Meanwhile, the army quietly captured the city (literally doing an encirclement maneuver around Tahir square) and providing "safety" and "stability" from Mubarak's own intentionally-fired anarchy. The protesters fled right into the arms of the very forces that are the basis of Mubarak's own sovereignty.
Yes, Mubarak might be "out" (although it is equally likely he will still remain a very real power operating from the background). But the regime that supported him, empowered by the military elite who -to a man- supported Mubarak through the crisis- remains in control. Promise of free elections in September are likely empty. A few of the chairs may gave been shuffled around, but is unlikely that the people have any greater say in their governance than they did a few weeks ago. It was a masterful management of the situation and one, I am sure, our own popularly-elected officials, are taking note of how it could be done should our own people one day rise up and say "enough is enough".
Mainstream media portrays this as a great victory for the common man, but look closely; nothing has really changed in Egypt. It's a snow job designed to make people feel good while the people with the power make sure they remain the only ones with real power; the "common man" (not just in Egypt, but across the world) -lulled by this easy "victory" - goes back to not questioning the power structure because he "knows" he has made a change for the better.

I wish I saw as rosy a picture as mainstream media portrays, but I can't. The popular uprising may not have been in the plans of Mubarak's regime, but he and his cronies still managed to come out of it largely unscathed. Democracy? When Sulemain remains as sitting president? He shares all of Mubarak's undemocratic worldview and there is no evidence he will leave power in September.

The Egyptian army has been favorably portrayed in this revolution because it didn't fire on the protesters, but -despite a few words to the contrary- they didn't *really* side with them either. Oh sure, there may have been some solidarity between the average soldier and the common protester, but none of them broke ranks. Rather, the military elite stayed stolidly in Mubarak's camp and disciplined. The army played "good cop" while Mubarak's internal police forces - disguised as plainclothes Mubarak supporters- were the "bad cop" in the equation. To further heighten the tension, Mubarak then pulled back the legitimate cops so criminals could operate openly. Meanwhile, the army quietly captured the city (literally doing an encirclement maneuver around Tahir square) and providing "safety" and "stability" from Mubarak's own intentionally-fired anarchy. The protesters fled right into the arms of the very forces that are the basis of Mubarak's own sovereignty.

Yes, Mubarak might be "out" (although it is equally likely he will still remain a very real power operating from the background). But the regime that supported him, empowered by the military elite who -to a man- supported Mubarak through the crisis- remains in control. Promise of free elections in September are likely empty. A few of the chairs may gave been shuffled around, but is unlikely that the people have any greater say in their governance than they did a few weeks ago. It was a masterful management of the situation and one, I am sure, our own popularly-elected officials, are taking note of how it could be done should our own people one day rise up and say "enough is enough".

Mainstream media portrays this as a great victory for the common man, but look closely; nothing has really changed in Egypt. It's a snow job designed to make people feel good while the people with the power make sure they remain the *only* ones with real power; the "common man" (not just in Egypt, but across the world) -lulled by this easy "victory" - goes back to not questioning the power structure because he "knows" he has made a change for the better.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'old spice, page 3, sun, coconuts' to 'old spice, page 3, sun, coconuts, rosie jones' - edited by NetRunner

The donkeys whose elections are on the line do not share maddow's rosy outlook. How can any of the obama regime be trusted when a @#! tax cheat still runs the Treasury?

Just cos things are so rosy at the moment I think this is worth a *quality

>> ^messenger:

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:
It's about power.
A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.
Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.
Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


I know it's conceited of me, but i somehow feel proud that this isn't true in my case..

For example, none of the women you listed as funny do i find funny. There's several over here that i've seen on QI and HIGNFY and mock the week that i've found very funny, and they're also really hot imo. True i can name more funny men than funny women, but i suspect that's not my fault specifically.

Maybe this says something about me feeling more comfortable with a woman in charge? Ahem..

Edit: Oh yeah, and i'm a straight male. Just thought i'd mention that for teh analysis.

>> ^messenger:

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


Except... Sarah Silverman, Wanda Sykes, and a slew of ones I can think of here in Australia, but you wouldn't know over there...

I think it just comes down to them being funny... There really aren't anywhere near as many good female comedians as male, but also think about your circle of friends and the 'funny ones'... I bet they're almost always male.

And, as said on this clip, a lot of women do the shtick about 'being a woman'... compared to GOOD comedians who have no 'topic' to their comedy, but range over everything.

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:

It's about power.

A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.

Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.

Easily Entertained = Rosy Palm and Her Five Sisters