>> ^shagen454:

I wanna dip my balls in it


Donald Trump's mouth?

...
...

>> ^shagen454:

I wanna dip my balls in it


This cup of warm milk?

>> ^shagen454:

I wanna dip my balls in it


This nacho cheese dip?

>> ^shagen454:

I wanna dip my balls in it


A pot of tea?

Your video, Stephen Colbert offers Trump $1 Million to..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Cheers for the promote!
In reply to this comment by Stingray:
*promote

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by bareboards2.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-and-Steve-Carell-debate-religion

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Your video, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Fallon & Stephen Colbert Fight At Emmys, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^chingalera:

Personally.....I believe they should pay the woman some royalties-
Go and watch Orson Welle's,"F for Fake" then revisit this so-called-and-so-claimed travesty of restoration and decide the intrinsic value of the woman's act.
What she did was inadvertent high-art on par with other great "masters" which to the untrained eye (or trained for that matter) are obvious brush-cleanings or Gesso-jobs.
This woman's act is for me a statement of the reality of just how full of themselves "experts" have become.
Simple fact for me is, is that the fresco has been reborn in this dynamic soup unfolding called the human experience and granny's attitude about the whole thing is not only hilarious but utterly commendable!!


Well said!

Stephen Colbert said it best in a video bit that I'll leave it to you to find, if you care, but I'll paraphrase.

The difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is that the Tea Party has representation. OWS is a collection of individuals with no representation; individuals acting of their own accord.

Now as far as you saying the Tea Party not being offensive, well... I can look at the last minute of this video and see the list of things that I absolutely can show linked to the Tea Party and I find that extremely offensive and racist and even condoning violence -- close enough without actually pulling the trigger.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate

>> ^Babymech:

B-b-b-blocked by Viacom


New embed: PSA around 2:10 mark

I agree. And I'm a "religious person."

The vast majority of religious people are nothing like the members of Westboro Baptist Church. I have no problem with your general sentiment about being kind and loving to everyone. I have a problem when you say "religious people glorify in the hatred of others."

That's just a hateful thing to say about me.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Just because he didn't say hate doesn't mean it isn't in him. To act like that, to willfully turn away a customer because you look down upon them and their lifestyle? That's bigotry, intolerance of another. Especially in light of the bible explicitly saying not to judge others.
Terrorism, really? You're silly.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
I bring this up because I feel that servicing a customer is part of operating inside of society and being an obedient and humble person, just as your religious text wants you to be.
Wielding judgement is for your god alone.
>> ^deedub81:
" I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others."
Using the same hyperbole that you do, I can paint all non-religious people with as broad a brush by saying "I don't understand why all non-religious people are violent terrorists and threaten hard working families with death threats."
I'm religious and I wouldn't deny business to somebody for being gay just like you didn't (and wouldn't) call in a death threat to this guy.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert