>> ^messenger:

Viral for going viral, which it did, back in its day.
It doesn't always have to be viral marketing.>> ^ponceleon:
Viral for what?



It does if you read the description of the viral channel.

*nochannel *drugs *dance *fail

Viral for going viral, which it did, back in its day.

It doesn't always have to be viral marketing.>> ^ponceleon:

Viral for what?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 13 Badge!

Your video, Drunk Girl Brings Down the House, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sturdier tent poles?>> ^ponceleon:

Viral for what?

Don't delete it! lol
In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Oh my gosh, I keep meaning to delete this video!!
It's just something I found accidentally and it tickled my funnybone at the time -- but obviously NO ONE else's -- so I should just get rid of it!
It's just a bunch of silly people dressed as police literally cooking up a batch of fudge. Really.
And something about watching "Bringing Down the House". I think the joke is just that they're NOT doing anything dirty. Just fake cops. Making actual fudge. That's it.

If this is offensive in title alone, I should just take it down! Tell me if you think that's a good idea!

My humour .. um .. ranges. I love smart political humour, but I do fall for pretty lame stuff too. Jeez, I just saw 'Four Lions' last night and it was hilarious but I can't imagine how it got green lit -- it's the darkest black comedy I've ever seen. Shocking!

My husband says I just laugh at everything. So there ya go.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Tara, sweetie, what the heck is this? We need more than "just what the title says"!!

All I can think it is some obscure (well, maybe it isn't obscure) gay reference?

I am mystified.

"I only have bad, sad stories, so I don't want to bring down the house in tears."

Fuck off gwiz, get on with it

I only have bad, sad stories, so I don't want to bring down the house in tears.

I was so confused. thanks for catching this. I can now see how this would be confusing.

I grabbed the info off of www.triggerstreet.com (which kevin spacey was a co-founder)

I'll go change it now

thanks again

In reply to this comment by Linz:
k, here's why I'm asking:
"The film is based on the New York Times best selling book "Bringing Down The House" by Ben Mezrich and stars our very own site co-founder, Kevin Spacey"
so, from your confused response, I'm guessing that either this is a quote taken from somewhere else, or everyone else on the planet knows Kevin Spacey started the sift and I been in the dark?

In reply to this comment by qruel:
??????????

In reply to this comment by Linz:
hold up, did Kevin Spacey seriously co-found the Sift?

check out this indepth article in wired about the team behind the book "bringing down the house" and the movie "21"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vegas.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vegas_pr.html

This is the simplest way to count cards and generally gives the player about a 1 to 2 percent advantage over the house. However the video doesn't bring up basic strategy, which is very useful to know when to play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Basic_strategy

For any blackjack buffs out there I recommend Ben Mezrich's book Bringing down the house. It's about the infamous MIT Blackjack team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team

The MIT guys were the first to incorporate team play with card counting and created advanced techniques such as card spotting to bust a dealer on purpose, card sequencing and cutting to the ace (which each gave a 40% advantage over the house). All of these techniques are described in Ben Mezrich's second book Busting Vegas.

The simple fact is that the majority of American oil does not come from the Middle East. America gets the vast majority of its oil from Venezuela (and Canada). Although oil was obviously an influential factor in bringing about the illegal invasion of Iraq - and I'm certain that necon elements wanted to construct a new ARAMCO in Iraq - I don't believe it was the only factor. The invasion of Iraq was highly influenced by hawks with strong ties to Israel and AIPAC. It was essentially a decision based on ensuring the security of Israel - the only country within the range of Iraq's missile arsenal (Europe and America were not). The Ironic thing is that Bush and his ilk got so obsessed with the Middle East they took their eyes off what was going on in South America. Before they could do anything about it Chavez had been elected and began nationalising the oil industry. Whatever you think of Chavez, he came to power on a promise to fairly distribute Venezuela's oil revenue. For a long time the Venezuelan people were sick of the huge proportion of the profits from their nation's oil reserves going into the hands of large American oil companies and a corrupt elite. Chavez isn't perfect - and he will probably prove just as ineffective as the people he replaced - but he certainly isn't a 'terrorist'. Yes he is a socialist who nationalised the oil industry; yes he talked to the Iranians and Castro; yes he supports Palestinian independence; and yes he opposes American political/military/economic imperialism. But this isn't enough to label someone a 'terrorist' (a stupid label which is a catch all for people who disagree with American, European, Russian, Israeli, Saudi, Egyptian government policies - whether they employ 'terror' tactics or not). Not buying oil from Venezuela will only bring further hurt to an already impoverished people.

"Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy gasoline that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism." This is simplistic crap. This organisation does not distinguish between states which support Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli hostility and occupation, and those that support organisation like Al-Qaeda. It is associated with the unquestiong support of Israeli government policy by the neocons and aims to undermine the financial support of the Palestinians and other organisations that oppose American and Israeli hegemony. Very little money for organisations like Al-Qaeda comes from Middle Eastern states - particularly those with large oil reserves. Al-Qaeda's principle objective is to bring down the House of Saud and establish an Islamic caliphate in Arabia. Consequently the Saudi state doesn't support Al-Qaeda. The same is true for all the small Gulf states. Iran is a Shi'a state, and Al-Qaeda is a militant Sunni organisation that thinks all Shi'a Muslims are heretics. Iran does support Hezbollah in their resistance to Israeli incursions into Palestine and Lebanon - but not Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda are also opposed to the Libyan government - and hence are not supported by Gaddafi.

One further irony is that the oil producing countries need American demand for oil as much as America needs their oil supply. As long as America buys oil from these countries (whose economies are essential built on oil) it has some say in their political systems, and their international allegiances. If oil supplies from these countries are boycotted then this means they will have to look to other countries - China, Russia, North Korea - in order to sell their oil. A boycot of oil from the Gulf will only weaken America's political influence in the Middle East!

Up-vote for potential discussion - not for the ideas or aims of the idiotic 'terror' free oil organisation.