The correspondents dinner is essentially a lighthearted roast, has been as long as I remember.

How dare a comedian be 1/10 as insulting as the president is daily!?

Snowflakes.

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

So what would you have done if (despite physics laws) you jumped in and sunk straight to the bottom and had been unable to climb or swim to the surface? It seemed like there was a lot more water than air between the balls, so I guess you probably would have drowned. Did you have somebody standing by with a rope or something the first time? I saw several shots where some of the kids jumped in head first but it always cut away before it showed how easy or hard it was to get back upright and above water. I see this being a little more dangerous that how lighthearted it was presented. But it still looks fun.

You sound like an angry old man.

Mumford and Sons have some great songs and this is a lighthearted, funny video.

You seem to take your dislike of them and expand it into a condemnation of an unrelated list of things you also dislike.

Also people who are "offended" by pop culture and music trends should shampoo my crotch

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.

>> ^Trancecoach:


The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."

From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.

Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

Wiki-

A practical joke (also known as a prank, gag, or jape) is a mischievous trick played on someone, typically causing the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort. Practical jokes differ from confidence tricks in that the victim finds out, or is let in on the joke, rather than being fooled into handing over money or other valuables. Practical jokes or pranks are typically lighthearted, reversible or non-permanent, and aim to make the victim feel foolish or victimized to a certain degree. However, practical jokes may also involve cruelty.
The term "practical" refers to the fact that the joke consists of someone doing something physical, instead of a verbal or written joke. For example, the joker who is setting up and performing the practical joke, might hang a bucket of water above a doorway and rig the bucket using pulleys such that, when the door opens, the bucket dumps the water. The joker would then wait for the victim to walk through the doorway and be drenched by the bucket of water.

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

>> ^budzos:

This is pretty assholish. I can't really see what's supposed to be funny about it. Wow, so hilarious to ruin someone's enjoyment of something they're deeply absorbed in.


>> ^Quboid:

This just seems like a dick move to me. When someone's really into something and you suddenly ruin it, duh, they get upset. That would be like me telling you that Bruce Willis was a ghost all along or that Tyler is in Jack's imagination - these things work on suspense, and that only works when they are revealed properly. Try watching a football match (real or American) when you know what's going to happen ... it's not the same, not at all.
I appreciate that people not into sports don't get this, but they should get that people into sports are, gasp, into sports. They don't deserve to be called morons or sheeple, for what, for enjoying something? Screw you. Who the hell are you to judge them?
Sorry if I just ruined those... Sucks, doesn't it?

Ya, The mom is taking it fairly lightly.
The child is definitely having a tantrum over not getting what she wants. But because of the edit, there is no proof that the tantrum caused the mom to give-in and turn on the music.

Yes, the child is having a meltdown - the best way to cure that is lighthearted ignore. Wait until the child wears herself out and can compose herself and ask nicely. Then let her know that because of the tantrum, this time, there will be no Britney but next time when she asks nice again, she can listen to Britney. That's what I do with my kids, (which usually ends with them starting to cry all over again, but you can't reward that behavior.)

And yes, easier said than done because although you try not to show it, your stress level is off the charts and your adrenalin pumps at the sound of your child doing this.

(Edit: I just fixed all kinds of typing mistakes on this post. I clearly didn't re-read what I typed)

>> ^shuac:

Whenever I've watched a real episode of Doctor Who, this is how it plays to me. Utterly stupefying as to how popular it is.


I'm a big fan of 2005+. I don't mind that it's goofy and lighthearted; I enjoy the cleverness and the humor mostly.

It's not for the kind of person who really likes to immerse themselves in lore. They don't usually go into detail about things; they tend to tell you how it is, not why, and they move on with the story. However, when they do explain things, I find they often have some interesting and creative ideas, not to say they don't have some stinkers as well. That often depends on which writer you're dealing with.

Well that was lighthearted with considering what i THOUGHT was going to happen

My favorite smiley usage is for exaggerating craziness, ie:

"If I ever see your pimply face again, I'll smash it with a brick, have a nice day asshole "

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree with his definition of the smiley face. It means that the previous statement was lighthearted. That's different from "I didn't mean it." Though it could mean you were only kidding, it could also mean "I don't mean that as an insult."

I disagree with his definition of the smiley face. It means that the previous statement was lighthearted. That's different from "I didn't mean it." Though it could mean you were only kidding, it could also mean "I don't mean that as an insult."

If they are made by good, well-known and respected Jews then I concede, it must be true because their families died in the Holocaust.

Do you have any idea how many people in this country have had their families almost completely wiped out in the Holocaust? And believe me, that hardly qualifies them as objective in matters of democracy, it is that survivor mentality that has made Israel into the semi-Fascist nation it is today, creating generations of people whose first and foremost interest is the protection of the Jewish people, pluralism be damned. Still, they are not any more racist than your average American, just more blindly patriotic.
I think, at the very least, the fact that these left-wing activists are allowed to do what they're doing and I'm allowed to express my opinions (as unpopular as they may be here in Israel, as this video shows) should make others think twice before using terms such as '4th Reich' so lightheartedly.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Asmo, can we cut the Nazi comparisons? They are getting SO old and you prove nothing except for your own ignorance by making these bombastic statements. Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this law or many others in this sorry excuse for a democracy, but it's these retarded 3rd Reich comparisons that make me feel disgusted by the extreme left here almost as much as I am by the right.
Grow up.

They are getting 'SO old' (OMFG Tiffany, it's like, SOOOOO old!!!) because they are made so often, and not just by right wing nutjobs. And they are made by good Jews. Well known and respected Jews who had families die in the Holocaust. People who will not condone what the facist state of Israel are doing to the Palestinians...
So no, I won't stop accusing the Israeli government of being a facist bunch of assholes on par with the Nazi's. If the jackboot fits...

>> ^gwiz665:

I've not really seen episodes of Dr. Who. But from the clips I have seen, it seems silly. I don't get the rabid fascination people have with it.


I've only watched since the relaunch in 2005, so I can't speak to the older episodes, but you're not entirely wrong. It's very lighthearted most of the time and the 'science' part of scifi is downplayed most of the time. You won't find detailed explanations of the technology or, in many cases, any explanations.

I think the biggest draw is the focus on cleverness. The Doctor operates like Sherlock Holmes and the way a show's mysteries get tied together at the end is often very interesting.

Every time the Doctor regenerates (ie: the role is taken over by a new actor) I think I'm going to hate the new one and so far I've been wrong every time. It's refreshing that the show has a built-in way to go in a new direction without shattering the fiction. David Tennant and especially Matt Smith were/are both great at being somewhat silly characters who periodically become remarkably bad-ass with a few well delivered lines.

I recommend Vincent and The Doctor as, probably, my favorite episode from the most recent season. "Blink" from a few seasons back was much loved for its very creative new villain, but I can't find a working copy online.

>> ^rychan:
Am I the only one who finds these disturbing? Yes? Ok...
I grew up playing FPS games as much as the next guy, but the celebration of killing in these videos bothers me. Don't say it's parody -- it's not. The killing of all of these people is supposed to be really cool and even lighthearted.
The video is very well made technically. I just don't like the implicit message.


Clearly you were not an 80's child.