Now that was a gold medal performance.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

You get the gold medal for obscure Idiocrasy quotes.
In reply to this comment by direpickle:
It's got what fire craves.



I do what I do not for glory, but for the people.

You get the gold medal for obscure Idiocrasy quotes.

In reply to this comment by direpickle:
It's got what fire craves.

Juvenile, sexist, objectifying, and dehumanizing.... since when did videosift become youtube lite?

PS: Not even close to gold medal ass. Certainly an olympic qualifier, but hardly a world beater.

PPS: also pretty lame camera work for a professional perv.

Any athlete that can get an Olympic gold medal while wearing jeans is OK by me.>> ^Payback:

Does anyone else start thinking she's attractive, then suddenly remember who she's dating?

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

How do they not have more gold medals in the Olympics? They should so add "precision work abilities" as a sport...

Running has produced a lot of really good people over the decades. I wish that were more celebrated rather than how hard or vicious someone can destroy their opponent.

People such as Derartu Tulu who twice tried to help Paula Radcliffe (3 time NY Marathon Winner) who was falling behind the leader pack. Eventually Paula told the older Tulu to go on without her, so she caught up with the head pack and won the New York Marathon herself and met Paula at the finish.

Or Emil Zatopek who gave one of his Gold Medals to Ron Clarke (the guy in the video) who was known as a choke artist for never winning gold in the commonwealth games and getting beaten by runners not as good as he was. Emil gave him a package when Ron visited him in Prague and told him "You've deserve it" and when Ron got home he found it was one of Emil's Gold Medals.

There are tons of these super cool stories of runner sportsmanship because running brings people together...go for a run.

>> ^shogunkai:

Why is the guy who won so happy? He only won because the person in front of him crashed on the last corner.


http://videosift.com/video/Australias-1st-Winter-Olympics-Gold-Medal

Win's a win...

As a species, according to evolutionary principle, they should be eliminated..and certainly not allowed to reproduce. They are a genetic dead-end, a contagion in the gene pool. Natural selection would prefer to wipe them out..and if they had to survive on their own, they would be wiped out.

So the question is, what is their value as human beings, according to evolutionary principle? Isn't perpetuating the abberation irrational? If not, why?

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny, evolution doesn't work that way. If someone with a severe disability survives and reproduces, they are a successful organism. If an Olympic gold medal holder has no children, speaking in terms of evolution: they are useless.

Shiny, evolution doesn't work that way. If someone with a severe disability survives and reproduces, they are a successful organism. If an Olympic gold medal holder has no children, speaking in terms of evolution: they are useless.

There are so many people around trying to tell homosexuals that they aren't really gay ,Gold Medal Wine Club Reviews ,I like your illustration work, your creativity and designs are really amazing.

I like your illustration work, your creativity and designs are really amazing. Gold Medal Wine Club Reviews ,It's probably the fact that there are so many people around trying to tell homosexuals that they aren't really gay just confused straight people

Three men have beat Sasuke: the original guy, Nagano Makoto, and the shoe salesman.

In reply to this comment by Bidouleroux:
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Announcers never cheer on the American version of the show. This lady has won several times but I can't remember if a lady has ever won in the mens competition.


lol. not even the men win the men's competition. In fact, in all history of the show only two won.>> ^lucky760:

It's worth mentioning that this is not the same Ninja Warrior tournament that only 3 men have completed, Sasuke, but the women's version, Kunoichi.
Even more worth mentioning is that not only did Ayako Miyake beat Kunoichi her first time out, but she won three tournaments in a row. Impressive.


Only two ever won SASUKE. Also, KUNOICHI is kind of a joke. For comparison, the third stage of SASUKE (the men's competition) has no time limit; that's just how difficult it is. And after that you have the final stage, with a rope twice as long as the women's pole. IMO, they could just have the women do SASUKE with less of the upper arm endurance (replace it with full body endurance or leg endurance) and add time to the time limit on the first, second and final stages. The fact that such a scrawny girl, an acrobat at that, won shows it takes more balance/coordination/lightness than muscle/endurance/speed to win KUNOICHI, so the girls who train with SASUKE in mind are disadvantaged (especially, they can't have enough muscle and endurance to beat SASUKE, but they have too much to beat KUNOICHI which requires a lighter, more "balanced" - in every sense - body).

Also, the English commentator is piss-poor. It's even more infuriating than the Japanese guy who keeps screaming like she's winning the first freaking gold medal of History. At least the Japanese guy does it consistently in a crescendo and not only when he thinks there's "action" happening in a weird counterpoint or worse, whispering for no reason since she CAN'T BLOODY HEAR HIM. The Japanese guy comments live and doesn't whisper, why the hell would he do that. He should be imprisoned for noise pollution over the airwaves. Also, get rid of the ridiculous overlays, it's distracting.