Wow, I remember this commercial. There's no way it could be that old..., Am I really that old??? Crap! (By the way, tha'd make me about four years old!)

>> ^Pprt:
>> ^vairetube:
Well, your assertion is... that a third-worlder, or member of a peripheral, exploited nation, is Non-White... The only way you could feign ignorance is if this was a printed story with no picture or names.

Racial slur? What are you on about? -Pprt


I fail to comprehend how saying someone is from the "Third World" is a racial slur. What's the nomenclature these days? Underdeveloped nation? No, sorry, that was 20 years ago. Today it's "developing nation".


Okay, I'll bite and give you the benefit of the doubt and explain to you, like a four year old, what is offensive about your comment:

From the narrator and the specifics of the video, this clip is from the USA, your assumption that this person is not originally from the USA makes a clear statement that there is somehow a difference between white people that came on the mayflower and a Mexican who can in the 1800s and has relatives still living in the united states, but bare a racial resemblance to someone who lives in say Mexico.

The major issue with your statement is that you assumed that this guy, just from his looks, is fresh off the boat or perhaps an illegal immigrant to the USA.

So let me break it down real simple for ya: you assumed that this guy is somehow related to the third-world just because of his looks. For all you know, his family may have been in the USA far longer than what I assume yours has. Therefore, there is a strong racial comment when you call someone a "third-worlder."

It's like saying "Darkie" or "Abbo" or "wetback."

You made an assumption on his background by the simple fact of what he looks like. It is racial. And if you still don't get it, well, you might want to take some touchy-feely sensitivity course designed for such situations.

sidenote: I'm not entirely sure if this is from Iraq or Afghanistan but if it's from Iraq, it's not dissimilar from Afghanistan as far as the greedy kids and what not.

Also, if you HAVE been to either of those countries, you would know they're not denying water, "biscuits", what have you to needy children but greedy children. If you HAVE been there you would know that they want these things for the same reason that a four year old wants the toy you are playing with: because YOU are playing with it.

I never denied the children or adults of Afghanistan water or something to eat or even cigarettes if they needed it. But when you have given a CASE of water so his family could have clean water for the day and he continues to ask for water or if you have given a cigarette to one particular ANP and he tucks it behind his ear, pulls out a pack of his own cigarettes, and smokes HIS OWN cigarette you quickly realize more often than not when they ask for something its not out of need but rather out of selfish want.

They ask for water not because they are thirsty, but because you have more water. They ask for "biscuits" not because they are hungry or poor but because you have more. They ask for "pen" (a popular one) not so they can write (most of the country is illiterate anyway) but because you have them.

There were many times where we gave out cases and cases of water to villagers while we passed through and many times when we handed out entire pallets of MRE's to families and even times when we handed out pens and other little trinkets to children so that they'd have a reason to smile. So don't stand there with a straight face and tell us we are selfish and without humanity.

Between this and the piano/drum vid, this guy has to be the most creative dude putting vids on the 'net right now!

My four year old absolutely cracked up at this. He loved it as much as I did!

>> ^jetako:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill is absolutely agreeable here. Guess what bucko, it's not your flipping decision whether a woman you've never met aborts her child. Not your business in the slightest.


that may be true for you and i, but when he (anyone) takes the stance that the abortion is a murder, it becomes their business. i'm assuming there is no secret motive behind the pro-lifers, and they just feel morally offended in the highest degree. to them, it would be the same as you killing your four year old boy (that's scary).

so the solution is in finding a resolution to the definition of human life, but when someone is already preaching about saving your soul and the sanctity of sperm, the waters are bound to get a little murky.

Obama's point here is a good one, and i think the conservatives have to concede that hitting at the roots of why woman have abortions and solving some of these problems is something both sides should have long since started working towards together.

1) If he's only 4, he's not going to have homework of any kind, let alone math homework. See this article on national age for children entering kindergarten. Thirty-nine states will not allow your child into kindergarten unless they turn five less than a month and a half into the school year. The likelihood of math homework when the teacher is still trying to teach some kids how to count is slim to none. The Flagstaff school district suggests you teach your child to count to ten before s/he starts kindergarten. And that's only a suggestion. To most parents, reading and writing come before math, because math is easier to learn. That's why you'll see kids struggling to write their name before they know what 4+5 is. They certainly wouldn't be working with two-digit numbers like 16.

2) Even if everyone in this particular class knew how to count before the school year started, the units in kindergarten (at least the ones in my school) didn't have math specific homework. The closest thing I can think of is when we went through the money unit, and we had to make change with what we had. I think we had worksheets with little cutouts of coins and we had to glue or tape on the page the combination that equaled X amount as homework.

3) The concept of subtraction is taught long, long after addition has been mastered. The concept of adding negative numbers, or "take-aways" is usually a difficult one for kids to grasp. No four-year-old, unless they are in an advanced after-school tutoring program or homeschooled, is going to be doing subtraction homework.

4) A cell phone number would've been relatively useless in this case, as there is obviously someone else in the house. The dispatcher says something about "listen to your mom," and the kid on the phone doesn't correct him. If you've ever babysat a four-year-old, you know they love to correct the slightest mistakes. If it wasn't his mother, I'm sure he would've let everyone know.

And there's no need to be condescending just because you disagree. No one's miserable for calling "fake" on a video. Jeez. Calm down.

>> ^karkarlee:
I could count, add and subtract a bit ( simple things, like 4+5 and 19-1 ) and was grasping reading and writing when I was four. I did it alone most of the time, because I myself wanted to. I would watch TV shows and learned from that.. I also knew to call 911 if something bad happened or someone was hurt or needed help badly.
This could just as likely be real. If it is, it's not the kid's fault that his parents didn't tell him their cellphone number as well. ( I knew my home phone by the time I was five. )
The child's mind doesn't work like an adult one, kk? Children and adults alike are diverse in all ways: height, hair color, race, development, intelligence, maturity, on and on. Stop sticking everything in a box, you're just making yourself miserable.

>> ^wraith:
Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?

Of course. You can find "evidence" to support pretty much whatever you want to say. You've already heard quite a bit from Wynder, but if you need more just google "guns reduce crime" and read any of the 447,000 hits on that. It's difficult to compare country for country because we have such different cultures. Unfortunately, we have a culture that is more accepting of violent crime than others, so we tend to experience more violent crime.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.
And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?

I've heard that the exact number of times I've heard that about getting SHOT thirty times. If you have to reload, it's not an accident. Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL of all guns. I believe that you should be QUALIFIED to own a gun and undertake the necessary gun safety training. If your kids can get into your guns, you should be held criminally responsible for accidents. Lock them up, don't keep them loaded, don't teach them how to use them until they know how to do it safely, use extra safeties, etc. My father owned about a half dozen guns while I was growing up. I first shot a gun when I was four, but before then it was firmly impressed on my mind that guns are DANGEROUS if not handled properly. I knew that I had better NEVER get them out for any reason. My father never treated them like a toy, so I never thought that I should.

At this point, I own ZERO guns. I have two small boys and don't feel I have the means to safely store them in a way that will keep everyone safe, so I don't.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)

Sorry, I don't think Michael Moore has a terrific corner on truth. I also don't think the opinion "nut-jobs" matters much. My point still stands. I certainly don't think either of those options would be good for fighting a revolution because where would we all live when it was over? Your point is fallacious, I'm afraid. If the question was, should people own tanks, my answer would be maybe. We would need a way to properly police and control it, the same way we do with guns.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

Didn't you already ask for evidence? I agree, the laws don't work, but it's because they are built on a flawed concept. I'd be interested to see how many violent crimes are committed by individuals who follow all gun laws versus breaking them in the process.


Consider something for a moment: let's say we buy into the fear-inspiring arguments that are presented that Bush cancels the November election, disbands congress, and declares himself president for life. What would you do? Would you live in a police state for the rest of your life? Would you pick up rocks and start throwing them at tanks? Would you take a gun and vainly fight the tanks? Don't we need some kind of way to even the odds, so our "by the people, for the people" government and way of life is protected by and the for the same, instead of by permission, for the man?

LONG, sorry.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I've always been an advocate of the second amendment for a lot of reasons, such as, I've heard there are fewer violent crimes committed in areas where more people have guns (don't rob someone who may shoot you). Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If no one had guns, we'd all be talking about knife control next, then fingernail-clipper control, etc.


Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)

Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed. Seems to work there.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.

And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?


>> ^Aemaeth:
We need to consider this, however. We no longer fight with muskets and military weapons are no linger identical to hunting weapons like they were then.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)


>> ^Aemaeth:
In conclusion, I think gun control is rubbish. It doesn't work.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

w.

Wake up, coughing, tired, with my face in my hands,
staring at the window as the sunlight demands action.
All the energy it takes to close these bedroom blinds.
Wrote this selfish sadness on a bathroom wall,
spent half the span of some lost culture's rise and fall,
but I'm as clueless as a drooling four year old.
Still hoping I might find the capacity to let you know I know you're lonely.
So here's the last call for regrets,
a final slow dance through the days that we all hold on to.
Here's the promises I've made, tied too tight to undo.
An unwrapped gift from me to you.
All the slightly insane on the 18 North Main,
reaching for a small-town downtown, night rain,
nothing I could say could be worth saying anyway today.
Like "Hey, whatever happened to what's that guys' name?",
we get a little older and it looks the same: askance.
Excuse my failing sense of humour.
Still hoping I might find the capacity to let you know I know you're lonely.
So here's the last call for regrets,
a final slow dance through the days that we all hold on to.
Here's the promises I've made, tied too tight to undo.
An unwrapped gift from me to you.
Here's the promises I've made; a razor blade and this broken piece of chain.
A history left to rust out in the rain.

Blame the parents all you want, but TV audiences love hot girls behaving badly. You can't lap up fifty thousand Parisitney Hiltonohan stories and then complain when carbon copies turn up among the general public.

Also I am not so sure about "sociopath"... they look like they know they are wrong but they want to look cool on camera (see sentence above). They remind me of four year olds who have chocolote all over their face and when you ask "did you take the cookies?" they say "nooooooooo" with a really innocent face, then they lick their fingers and look a bit awkward.

Oh, and Sifters, it's nice to see another thread with violent misogyny in it. This place is getting real cosy. Slap them goodfornothing bitches, that'll sort 'em out. Yeeeaaahh.. Hit the shapely young girls. Hit 'em hard. Yeah. I am upvoting and rubbing my nipples at the same time. woohooo.

Makes you realise how many adult fetishes are probably coming from their unexpressed four year old mind-set.

Once again this makes me think of MLX's wisdom: No computers in the bedroom.

That was great! But what four year olds have subtraction "homework"?

It was this recently posted clip that reminded and inspired me to post the Tedster

http://www.videosift.com/video/Very-bright-four-year-old

Yeh, AnimalsFC, we get the "random" checks too, especially arriving in LAX. It's an intimidation technique, I think, as much as a 'security' measure. We thought the staff were pretty insensitive in the last check we went through, too.

Almost tore our little girl's favourite doll apart, making rude jokes about its worn-out look, in front of her. The puffer box (explosives detector) is intimidating enough for an adult, but pretty scary for a four year old.

The message is "if you so much as look like a potential threat, we're gonna CHECK YOU OUT". Their criteria seems to be: brown skin, dark hair, long beard, Arabic sounding name etc = possible terrorist.

When you think of how all this is a counter-measure to protect the U.S. from those who have a grudge to bear about U.S. military actions, it's just a joke, really.

Affectionate, my ass. I can't wait until he teaches the four year old how to say "nigger" and puts it on the tubes. A four year old is just such a pathetically easy mark for this sort of thing.

But I'm not too worried about the mental/emotional health of the child. MAybe his mother is not a redneck.

I hate supposed "comedy" that revels in attacking the defenseless. I suppose that you could post videos of people beating up homeless guys, or making mentally handicapped people eat their own snot, or assholes knocking people over in wheelchairs and it would get eleven votes.

I just don't have the patience or the tolerance for it.