>> ^SaNdMaN:
I'm surprised that Zakaris is denying that the US provided Iraq with weapons. I thought that was common knowledge.


You are mistaking 'common knowledge' for the truth. Zakaria is exactly correct in stating America did not sell Saddam chemical weapons, but instead provided him with agricultural credits. He did not go into greater detail, but the full truth is America also cleared the sale of dual use technology to Saddam. Some of that included unarmed light helicopters and possibly some chemical precursors. Mean while West Germany was Saddam's biggest supplier. And when I say biggest, we mean that America's total aid was less than 10% of what West Germany was providing Saddam.

The bigger point though in the exchange in the interview makes it completely clear that Zakaria has the right of things. America's contributions to Saddam were not even terribly significant to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The significance of that aid to the situation in Iran today is so small it doesn't even make sense to bring it up. As Zakaria points out, why are multiple former Iranian presidents, prime ministers and clerics the ones rallying the reform movement?


Surely it is beyond reason to pretend that it is American satellite channels that has persuaded those internal Iranian leaders to take the actions they have. This is, despite what the Iranian regime wants to be believed, an internal Iranian matter and not one brought upon them by the infidels, imperialists or the Jews.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
What the fuck is the guy even asking? I've listened to the question a few times, but I'm still confused. (maybe I'm stupid)


Let me rephrase in somewhat more logical terms:

If
A is 91% of X
and
A+B is 92% of X

then
does A constitute less of X than A+B?

where
A is intercourse with multiple partners
B is lying about it to one of them
and X is a measure of how morally unacceptable an action is

While it does depend on how much logic one can actually utilize when talking about 'morals', the answer should still be a 'YES'.

>> ^chilaxe:
Yeah, I basically looked like that for the entire last 8 years.


Fuck, I look like that now!

>> ^SaNdMaN:
What the fuck is the guy even asking? I've listened to the question a few times, but I'm still confused. (maybe I'm stupid)


No, it's just that stupid a question. Thus the priceless reaction by the random musician on Fox news.

SaNdMaN

Britan has its fair share of shit,

I think Britain has been on the forefront of alot of comedic innovation due to English peoples cynical attitude and because of English language and the fact we raped and pillaged so manny cultures over the years , because of that will will have stolen alot of comidy to end up with something more diverse than other cultures.

Im sure Usa has had manny comedic innovators just maby not to the same exstent as english due to the age of the country and its atitudes.

USa has Innovated in other subject areas for more praliphicly than UK though.

In the end what you find funny is subjective and will depend on what you have grown up on and with , but also if you wer to ask what is more sophisticated slapstick or the office/Monty python? people would probably go with the latter , not that sophistication is the be all and end all , i would argue that at least sophisticated things take longer for sum one to get board with them.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Greatest-Freakout-Ever-Response

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
>> ^pipp3355:
>> 1. ... answer deathcow's question "how does he get annoyed 2 seconds after the guy sets the camera down?"

There were several 5 second-ish pauses throughout the rant. It isn't unreasonable to think he walked in during a pause rather than at the very beginning. Is the mom in on the faking as well?


>> 2. Explain why the SPONSORS of this video don't want this on youtube.

I haven't seen that statement, but I doubt it means sponsors like "people who pay you to represent a product". It could mean parents or guardians... I have no idea though. It just seems that if it was meant to be faked then they could have easily written something "believable". The specific wording of that comment doesn't really support either stance on the video... it's just an odd comment.

If I found out one of my (hypothetical) kids was posting stuff like that about their brother/sister then I'd sure as hell have it taken down immediately.


>> 3. Answer Sandman's question: why take a video of the video? / Explain why this is a video of a youtube video.

According to the description the original youtube video was recorded by someone else and was reposted when the original was taken down shortly thereafter. I don't know why someone would use that method, but not everyone knows how to download youtube videos as a video file.



It may be fake, but if it is then that is some amazing acting and composure. What is more likely, a kid having severe emotional problems, or two brothers and an older lady faking multiple videos flawlessly without ever once breaking character?

For anyone who is convinced this is fake (or real for that matter):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

>> ^pipp3355:
>> 1. ... answer deathcow's question "how does he get annoyed 2 seconds after the guy sets the camera down?"

There were several 5 second-ish pauses throughout the rant. It isn't unreasonable to think he walked in during a pause rather than at the very beginning. Is the mom in on the faking as well?


>> 2. Explain why the SPONSORS of this video don't want this on youtube.

I haven't seen that statement, but I doubt it means sponsors like "people who pay you to represent a product". It could mean parents or guardians... I have no idea though. It just seems that if it was meant to be faked then they could have easily written something "believable". The specific wording of that comment doesn't really support either stance on the video... it's just an odd comment.

If I found out one of my (hypothetical) kids was posting stuff like that about their brother/sister then I'd sure as hell have it taken down immediately.


>> 3. Answer Sandman's question: why take a video of the video? / Explain why this is a video of a youtube video.

According to the description the original youtube video was recorded by someone else and was reposted when the original was taken down shortly thereafter. I don't know why someone would use that method, but not everyone knows how to download youtube videos as a video file.



It may be fake, but if it is then that is some amazing acting and composure. What is more likely, a kid having severe emotional problems, or two brothers and an older lady faking multiple videos flawlessly without ever once breaking character?

For anyone who is convinced this is fake (or real for that matter):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

*facepalm*

for people who think this is real, try this:

1. Watch this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Greatest-WoW-Freakout-Ever-2
and answer deathcow's question "how does he get annoyed 2 seconds after the guy sets the camera down?"

2. Explain why the SPONSORS of this video don't want this on youtube.

3. Answer Sandman's question: why take a video of the video? / Explain why this is a video of a youtube video.

Sandman, do you mean rich? An Easystar is not expensive and neither is the camera. His house is pretty nice for a country home though.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a good idea to still use a contact lens THAT YOU FISHED OUT OF THE FUCKING DRAIN.


I'm pretty sure you would wash the contact before YOU PUT IT IN YOUR FUCKING EYE.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
>> ^alien_concept:
Because there IS a fuckin H in it! Ahh been there before...

And Americans pronounce "r"s at the end of words, because there are fucking "r"s there.


So that's why my girlfriend never appreciates my Hookah = Prostitute jokes.

>> ^SaNdMaN:
Who is he yelling at in the video?


The guy on the panel that didn't find him attractive.

>> ^CaptainPlanet:
>> ^SaNdMaN:
I'm pretty sure this isn't POV.

i am a motorcycle.


hahahahahahahah

>> ^SaNdMaN:
I'm pretty sure this isn't POV.


i am a motorcycle.

>> ^pierrekrahn:
>> ^SaNdMaN:
That was gay... Nothing happened. Why did this get so many votes?

I'd like to see you sitting in that front seat!


What does that have to do with anything? The prank wasn't funny to watch.

>> ^pierrekrahn:
>> ^SaNdMaN:
That was gay... Nothing happened. Why did this get so many votes?

I'd like to see you sitting in that front seat!


not enough room