Tags for this video have been changed from 'homeless, James, Bond, sequel, second, 007, funny, parody, spoof, cheap, poor, movies, toys' to 'homeless, James Bond, sequel, second, 007, funny, parody, spoof, cheap, poor, movies, toys' - edited by Grimm

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

Started out as a funny parody and turned into a call for political action. Fantastic!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A mind boggling argument. Does that mean that the only polls that FOX considers truly unbiased are the ones that are an even 50/50 split? >> ^Jinx:
Hey look, its 70-30 in favour of the democrats!. What does this tell us? That they polled more democrats! BIAS I TELLS YA.


Well, I'd hope that isn't REALLY their argument. I just thought it was a funny parody. but then, life is sometimes stranger than fiction...

I wonder if Fox actually presented any evidence. I somewhat doubt it. Still, its entirely posssible that some polls may have not been representative and that more left leaning media cherry picked those results whuch were most favourable. A left wing conspiracy to tweak all poll results though? Idk, sounds like a desperate attempt to stir up controversy when its clear their horse is losing.

" "Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any reasonable artistic and educational merit, implying its sole intent is to cause sexual arousal." -- Da rules.

We're not prudes here, so 4 of those don't count of lack of proper nudity, and Girl in a Toyota is funny and has a story. Britta crosses the line and should also be * discussed. If it had been discussed and approved already, you'd have a point.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^messenger:
Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?
And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.
They all work for me, but that's neither here nor there.
On the point of "single-purpose fap material"...
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Huh-Title-Just-a-minute
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-To
yota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goe
s-topless-in-Choke
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Kate-Upton-The-Many-Talents
-of-Kate-Upton
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Hot-Girl-Dancing-Around-in-H
er-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-B
ETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows
I can't call this video enjoyable for any reason but that's also neither here nor there, IMO.
I like the line to be clear as well, but it never is. It depends who submits, who complains, what day it is, which way the wind is blowing, etc. I just can't justifiably call this pornographic; certainly no more so than any of those accepted videos above.

>> ^messenger:

Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?
And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.

They all work for me, but that's neither here nor there.

On the point of "single-purpose fap material"...
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Huh-Title-Just-a-minute
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goes-topless-in-Choke
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Kate-Upton-The-Many-Talents-of-Kate-Upton
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Hot-Girl-Dancing-Around-in-Her-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-BETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows

I can't call this video enjoyable for any reason but that's also neither here nor there, IMO.

I like the line to be clear as well, but it never is. It depends who submits, who complains, what day it is, which way the wind is blowing, etc. I just can't justifiably call this pornographic; certainly no more so than any of those accepted videos above.

Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?

And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.

*controversy>> ^xxovercastxx:

@messenger
http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Taste-the-Rainbow
http://videosift.com/video/BANNED-GERMAN-SPRITE-AD-BJ
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Tree-This-gets-a-10-on-the-weird-O-meter
I think there's precedent for this sort of thing.

>> ^jmd:

Thanks for the love eric, but people probably aren't realizing it is one of those funny parody style videos from the menu page and skipping it. I't will be doomed to obscurity only to be upvoted by anyone who sees the video 4 months from now elsewhere and searches vidsift only to find it already here.


Close... I saw it now so just one week after... also it belongs in *electronica too. I will also *promote this wonderful thing.

Thanks for the love eric, but people probably aren't realizing it is one of those funny parody style videos from the menu page and skipping it. I't will be doomed to obscurity only to be upvoted by anyone who sees the video 4 months from now elsewhere and searches vidsift only to find it already here.

>> ^Xax:

I know it's supposed to be a funny parody, but it reminds me how incomprehensibly insane that country is. It would be fascinating and scary to be in one of their heads.


Only the falling from the sky bit is parody; they really do simply have pretty women in uniform directing traffic rather than traffic lights. Insane, yes, but also sort of awesome.

More videos:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/north-korean-traffic-girls-and.html

I know it's supposed to be a funny parody, but it reminds me how incomprehensibly insane that country is. It would be fascinating and scary to be in one of their heads.

Funny parody

"Those brainwarshin' books - like the evolution crap"
"Yeah, I'm with you girl"

Shit. I thought when she shouted "BURN THE BOOKS!!!" that she was doing a funny parody of the crazy guy who had stood up, and everyone else was feeling a little awkward waiting for him to stop and sit down, (and the burn the books shout was to relieve the tension a little). Then they can get on with the more believable angry paranoia type stuff.
But they're all taking this in and I presume generally agreeing with it.

Jesus Christ, you Americans have got some healthy dollop of crazy amongst your ranks.

>> ^keitholbermann:
I understand these animals are extremely cute, but am I wrong and alone to think owning an animal is equal to enslaving them no matter how much attention you feel obligated to show them?


Dude... you're not even a funny parody of the real KO. Just give up before you embarrass yourself.

Check this funny parody of Mad Men.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Meshugene-Men

I don't know what to make of this one, downvote for being retarded, or upvote for being kind of funny/parody?