In reply to this comment by jonny:
*dead

Level 59 Reaper? Respect.

Anyhow, this one's fixed, along with 1/2 dozen others.

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

Lol two comedians spiraling out of control toward an impromptu rendition of the Aristocrats i think

I think he is saying "Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen." Keen as in interested and as cliche advice for someone who is dating.

>> ^Nebosuke:

I'm missing the expression he says around 2:18. What is that expression and what does it mean?
I feel like this concept is explored quite a bit among comedians for longer than it has been acceptable on stage.
See The Aristocrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_(film)

I'm missing the expression he says around 2:18. What is that expression and what does it mean?

I feel like this concept is explored quite a bit among comedians for longer than it has been acceptable on stage.
See The Aristocrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_(film)

You might want to read it more carefully:

"Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick identifies a continuum between homosociality and homosexuality, going as far as correlating feminism and lesbian desire: 'it is precisely this broad spectrum of women's homosocial loyalties that Adrienne Rich has referred to and celebrated as the "lesbian continuum"

and the connection from the other article:

7th century BC as an aspect of Greek homosocial culture,[5] which was characterized also by athletic and artistic nudity, delayed marriage for aristocrats, symposia, and the social seclusion of women.[6] The influence of pederasty was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."[7]"

There is a casaul relationship between the two, and the normalization of these kinds of behaviors led to the pederast society documented in greece





>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You don't think there is any connection? It's a historically proven fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosociality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.



"In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a "morbid condition", adult homosexuality, that today's eromenos may become tomorrow's kinaidos, defined as the passive or "penetrated" partner."
Are you referring to this? Would you mind reading BOTH of these articles about the topic?
Would you please mind explaning where - by the power of the everlasting dragon hunting, snake exploding jeesus - you think there is any FACT of the correlation you were implying?
Let me help you with the reading part: "Homosociality, by definition, implies neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality."
Please help me with this?

So you basically agree it the government that the true problem but you instead choose to attack other such as in the video.


Smart, very Smart.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^bobknight33:
You issue is the Government. Your elected officials vote for this. Stop voting in crooked officials and this shit will stop.

Impossible under the current system. That's like telling Italy to just get rid of the Mafia.
Anyone who doesn't play it their way will be assimilated by the application of large (for normal people) bribes, and/or smeared and ruined through the right wing press.. or killed.
These are people who have ACTIVELY campaigned against global warming awareness and financial regulation, who tricked the US govenment into handing them $800bn last time they fucked up, who make money off dead brown babies ('we don't count bodies - especially childrens bodies').. and so much more.
You are dealing with the same sort of men who under different circumstances become dictators and torturers. You want to take their money and power off them? Good luck.
The USA was created because of the impossibility of reform under the entrenched European mafia families (i.e royalty and aristocracy).
Imagine if the US got to the point where some overpriveliged simpleton became ruler just because his daddy was before him, and realligned the countrys military and economic clout to serve only the aristocratic elite of newly minted barons and earls?
It may be time to find a new bit of land somewhere..

>> ^bobknight33:
You issue is the Government. Your elected officials vote for this. Stop voting in crooked officials and this shit will stop.


Impossible under the current system. That's like telling Italy to just get rid of the Mafia.

Anyone who doesn't play it their way will be assimilated by the application of large (for normal people) bribes, and/or smeared and ruined through the right wing press.. or killed.

These are people who have ACTIVELY campaigned against global warming awareness and financial regulation, who tricked the US govenment into handing them $800bn last time they fucked up, who make money off dead brown babies ('we don't count bodies - especially childrens bodies').. and so much more.

You are dealing with the same sort of men who under different circumstances become dictators and torturers. You want to take their money and power off them? Good luck.
The USA was created because of the impossibility of reform under the entrenched European mafia families (i.e royalty and aristocracy).

Imagine if the US got to the point where some overpriveliged simpleton became ruler just because his daddy was before him, and realligned the countrys military and economic clout to serve only the aristocratic elite of newly minted barons and earls?

It may be time to find a new bit of land somewhere..

all valid points about movies cinemas etc....but seriously why is no-one talking about how crappy of a movie this is?

Its about a horse tied into wwi. Its like legends of the fall but instead of people...theres a horse. Or maybe its nothing like legends but still...seriously..... wwi patriotism repackaged with a horse

If you like war movies.....that was probably all the war scenes you're going to get.

'Be careful [sir dashing aristocratic dweeb) with me horse sir' ...'No problem (peasant boy) who despite his peasant baseness somehow managed to raise this noble horse despite....No wait, BECAUSE of his peasant simplicity managed to raise a fine noble horse and will somehow woo the wealthy girl.

*facepalm*.... to each their own.

durka durka mohammed jihad! durka durka durka


I love these guys!

Also loved South Park kids telling the Aristocrats Joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKGHVA6rb0

That clip was on the aristocrats movie

the recreation of sep 11 was horrible but soooo devilishly funny

The Aristocrats!

>> ^quantumushroom:

On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

I guess it's helpful for you to ignore that Saint Algore only took Environmental Classes to avoid tougher ones, and even then only got a 'C'.


>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?
You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.
The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companies deniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate



And if Al Gore was the leading intellectual mind behind climate science, you might have something approaching a point. Except he isn't. Better luck next time.

So, once again in case you missed it last time: of the people who have actually studied the subject, there is an over-whelming consensus that climate change is real and man-made. Can you show me one climate scientist who supports your position?

Or do you go to a doctor when your car breaks down?

On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate


I guess it's helpful for you to ignore that Saint Algore only took Environmental Classes to avoid tougher ones, and even then only got a 'C'.





>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?
You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.
The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companies deniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

>> ^quantumushroom:

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?

You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.

The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companies deniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate