I thought parts of it were cringeworthy, but that that was entirely intentional. Sometimes that cringe is precisely what a comic is going for.

Honestly, I don't remember any of these being a "roast" to the degree that this one was. Thinking back on them in Obama's era, all I can remember is the mic-drop moment when Obama turned the tables and said Dick Cheney was the worst president in his memory, and Keegan-Michael Key being Obama's anger translator. Obama could certainly handle light/moderate jabs directed at him, but I don't remember that being done much if any at these specific events. Maybe it was and I just don't remember it.

Anyway, I think that saying that this upped the ante and went for the jugular significantly more than in the past is almost certainly correct. But that doesn't make it "bad" or "disrespectful" or whatever. I don't care that Trump didn't attend, even though presidents "traditionally" do. Hell, given the whole "fake news" shtick that he is trying to sell, he should have barred any White House staff from attending -- even/especially Press Secretary Sanders.

BUT, then after the event he should have simply said that he didn't watch it and that he doesn't give a rats ass what was said there instead of sulking about it on twitter. Acting all offended just makes him look like a little bitch (and that goes for all the other R's that have whined also).


Anyway, I guess overall I thought her bit was a good but not great set. Doing that material with that mixed audience guarantees that there's going to be some uncomfortable silences and crickets, but she clearly anticipated and managed that quite well. Roasts aren't really my thing, but given the machismo image that Trump tries to push it may well have been the perfect way to bait him into looking like a crybaby in his inevitable response. Mission accomplished?

I realized...for me there's a near perfect way to PROVE this is not meant as sexual, and to determine if any other 'older man/woman, younger boy/girl' video is sexual or if it's just all in your own sick mind....no erect penis. Simple as that in my mind. No erection, no sexuality, therefore no perversion.

That's a two-edged sword. Too many coders are secretly engineers who want to do it in the perfect way, where very often you only want it "good enough" instead of "perfect". Striking a balance of that, is how you get things done.

what a phenom job @dag and @lucky760.
absolutely love the new look and features.commenting has been revamped in a perfect way.gonna take some time to learn all the other new widgets but over-all i am thoroughly impressed with what you both have created.

i am humbled by the time,energy and dedication you two have brought to this site.
fantastic job!

Very suspect.

Actually when you think of it this is the perfect way to secretly promote the burgeoning career of your packaged popstar.
They don't have a record deal, you "discover" them, put them on your own show, the nation watches them week after week....

Perfect way to start a Monday morning.

Well, this seems to have turned into a public forum....

I, too, miss the QUALITY contributions of blankfist, @RhesusMonk. The QUALITY contributions have been stellar. Some of the funniest things on the Sift came from his observations. Funny and smart. What's not to like?

Let me tell you.

It wasn't just the obvious trolling.

I don't miss the personal attacks, and the thin-skinned whining that followed when blankie was told off by fellow Sifters and then ultimately dag. Talk about being able to dish it out but not being able to take it!

If anyone has received preferential treatment, it has been blankie. Blankie has been responsible for driving many folks away from the sift, but because he did make QUALITY contributions, he was allowed to come back again and again.

Besides, I think this is a perfect way to flameout on the Sift, and is an absolutely PERFECT final troll on the Sift. A mere 90 or so vids away from Galaxy, and to walk away from that glory? That is classy, funny, in-your-face proud and defiant. Listed on the Top Ten with the Circle Line logo as a Galaxy symbol, as @Fusionaut noted?

The Perfect Troll. Absolutely Perfect Troll.

Yeah Bill Gates doesn't know anything. He's a foolish old man who's success can be attributed to luck and only luck. Get real. He didn't say the rich pay small amounts he said he think's they don't pay enough. Being rich doesn't group you with the politicians. They are the reason our debt is so high. Justice is the perfect way to describe the suggested increase in taxes to tackle the problem. The rich is a small group of people and that's how things work. If they don't do something mob mentality will set in and we'll see rich people being strung up by their necks and not their toes. >> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's perfect - way to save it up.>> ^Drax:

Psh

>> ^bareboards2:

I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
<oddly manipulative text>You arguing about this completely proves my point.</oddly manipulative text>
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
<patronizing>Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again?</patronizing> He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
<oddly manipulative text> You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.</oddly manipulative text>

I see, it's simple! In your view:

1> make concessions to undeserving benefactors, legitimizing their craziness.
2> win(?; see below) the battle but loose the war
3> Profit!

We can win the this battle and win the war. This vid is fine to represent solely a religious view of this issue, but the correct way to attack this issue and assert the integrity of government is to keep them out of our pants as a principal.

And to the point, and this argument didn't work in one of the more liberal states in the nation. Not one repub was swayed. I guess the water spilled eh?

lol

>> ^bareboards2:
I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
You arguing about this completely proves my point.
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.

If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


You think a "trial" would be any better? Osama admits he's guilty, and he's proud of it. His death is inevitable, and at least this way we don't have to go through the whole dog and pony show and build him up as even more of a martyr. This is the perfect way to end this: if you fuck with us, you're going to die. There's no sanctimonious we're-morally-superior-than-the-world bullshit, just practical reality. If you believed for this long in America's moral infallibility, this will hardly change your opinion. And frankly, if not giving Osama a trial is the worst that the US ever does, I'd say that America's pretty fucking awesome.

That these come from a society of arts surprises me not. Having studied art at the University of Fine Arts, the lightness on facts and analysis and heavy on the self-righteous and judgmental brings me back to the kind of simplistic discussions that we were encouraged to pursue in the Uni (as long as, you know, you cover everything with a shiny coat of complicated words or nice pictures - can't have anyone going around exposing our hypocrisy by making sense).

Art has divorced itself from reality since post-modernism, perhaps even before. The argument made here that enlightenment ideals have failed and we need some new bogus spiritual (and I'm using the word in a broad sense, not talking just about religious spirituality) way of looking at the world just sounds to me like a perfect way to plunge the world into a new dark age of thought.

Enlightenment didn't fail, it was corroded over time by the usual suspects - greed, ignorance, selfishness. It doesn't need replacement, it needs renewing. "Every generation needs its own revolution" because conditions and forces on the terrain are always changing, but the ideals of reason and progress, have no doubt, are eternal and the only tools that can save the naked ape. Lazy thinking bestows us no miracles.