This has to be some of the most worthless tripe posing as alleged news anyone can be subjected to-For example: News would be a near-earth impact on Venus!!

Non-news would be Immanuel Nobel's third son not rolling over in his grave shaped like a chemistry set full of stable ordinance, upon hearing the so-called Peace prise(s) are handed out to all-comers, who make some creamy teen-agers load in their sleep-Bleeegh! All presidents' suck!

Bejeeszus H. Chimera, transplant or transfusion, fake your pick!!! Can we simply throw shit at whoever poses as some leader android, or wHAATT!

Peace prizes are for effectual, human entities-Try 1964 or 1935, or any other year the award was allocated to the "special fund". Christ or Cthulhu!

Who else thinks the "peace prize is meaningless?? We can't be the only ones?!

O'Donnell is insufferable. Rep. Culberson answered "no" several times early in the interview, but O'Donnell repeatedly challenges this answer and asks the question again because it doesn't fit into his prejudiced idea of what a fiscal conservative or constitutionalist should believe.

Other terrible stuff: Apparently, according to O'Donnell something either needs to be envisioned by Jefferson, or it's socialist, with no third option. Also, apparently the platforms of political parties never change, because it's somehow odd that a republican in 2009 would be in favor of social security when republicans in ~1935 weren't.

I'm sure there's more, but I could barely stand to watch this once.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

Even though farhad's post is marked as being from '35, it's the same performance as this

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Benny-Goodman-Sing-Sing-Sing-1935

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician and Republican Congressman for the State of Texas, who gained widespread attention during his unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination.

And its free
http://www.fileshack.com/file.x/13818/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.+Build+1935

My fav sifted vid, which is a nice piece of history both from a "moving pictures" and sociological standpoint. And it's an awesome tune...

http://www.videosift.com/video/Black-Shadows-excerpt-from-Radio-Parade-1935-In-Color

My Pq only has two videos in there. They should probably both be there but of the two this one is slightly better because it has Nick Cave in it...

http://www.videosift.com/video/Nick-Cave-Saloon-Ballad-Singer

Great idea for a talk post, AC.

^unclejimbo,

directly comparing murder rates country-to-country is not a valid comparison because of a convolution of variables and you should know that. the figures i quoted were not simple murders, if one included those, the numbers would be even higher. genocide is only possible under a differential of force. that occurs when one group disarms another group. i think you should read up on gun myths further before you jump to the conclusions held by "popular knowledge". if this is a subject you are interested in, (at least interested enough to read about while you are at work) i can point you to a lot of enlightening information.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-
millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million
dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million
"educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians
were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded
up and killed."

It is not enough to say that gun control resulted in these deaths, this requires additional analysis which is found in that book. Gun confiscation rarely results in the direct, immediate death of its owner, rather it establishes a force differential which makes oppression, genocide, and murder possible.

You may not realize it, but one of the few things stopping someone from rounding you up and killing you is the fact that there are 150 million guns in this country. It does not mean that in the absence of guns genocide always occurs, but there has never been an instance of genocide where the victims had a means to defend themselves. If you take away the guns, and somewhere down the road something intense happens which causes a philosophical shift, you are ripe for genocide. Just look at WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps. How many Japanese lives do you think were spared because the US government did not have the physical power to kill them as a result of an armed populace? How about for arabs after 9-11?

It is extremely dangerous to trust your life with complete strangers, and that is what you do when give up your right to defend yourself.

"all guns will be confiscated and..."

its funny(?) until it comes true. list of countries/states that have confiscated firearms:

1938 Germany
1996 Australia
2001 Canada
1991 New York
1999 California
2005 Louisiana
1997 Great Britain
1935 China
1964 Guatemala
1956 Cambodia
1970 Uganda
1929 USSR
1911 Turkey
Bermuda
Cuba
Greece
Ireland
Jamaica
Soviet Georgia
Kenya
South Africa

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

-Sinclair Lewis It can't happen here (1935)

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

These are fixed. Thanks for the hard work.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Herb-Alpert-The-Tijuana-Brass-Tijuana-Taxi
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Doors-1967-The-Crystal-Ship
http://www.videosift.com/video/Loretta-Lynn-1971-Coal-Miners-Daughter
http://www.videosift.com/video/Captain-Midnights-Secret-Squadron-Emblem-w-Ovaltine
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Waynes-Guide-to-a-Healthy-Marriage
http://www.videosift.com/video/Top-Hat-1935-Cheek-to-Cheek-Fred-Astaire-Ginger-Rogers
http://www.videosift.com/video/Grand-Funk-Railroad-in-Concert-1974-The-Locomotion
http://www.videosift.com/video/Three-Dog-Night-1969-One
http://www.videosift.com/video/Charlie-Daniels-Band-The-Devil-Went-Down-To-Georgia-Live
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Sound-of-Music
http://www.videosift.com/video/Andy-Kaufman-Mighty-Mouse
http://www.videosift.com/video/KC-The-Sunshine-Band-1977-Keep-It-Coming-Love
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sleepy-Meerkats-Keep-Falling-Down
http://www.videosift.com/video/Elvis-Presley-1970-in-concert-singing-Poke-Salad-Annie
http://www.videosift.com/video/Golden-Earring-1973-Radar-Love
http://www.videosift.com/video/Donna-Summer-sings-Last-Dance-movie-Thank-God-Its-Friday
http://www.videosift.com/video/Spontaneous-Human-Combustion
http://www.videosift.com/video/REO-Speedwagon-Live-1981-Take-It-On-The-Run
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-First-Mighty-Mouse-1942-The-Mouse-of-Tomorrow
http://www.videosift.com/video/Janis-Joplin-1969-Live-Germany-Piece-of-My-Heart
http://www.videosift.com/video/You-Dont-Snipe-In-Carentan-Happy-Birthday-Snipe
http://www.videosift.com/video/Young-Frankenstein-1974-Movie-Trailer
http://www.videosift.com/video/Les-Miserables-The-Attack-on-Rue-Plumet-One-Day-More
http://www.videosift.com/video/Head-On-Crash
http://www.videosift.com/video/Christmas-Time-With-Mr-Bean
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-Astley-1987-Never-Gonna-Give-You-Up
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Ending-to-An-Affair-to-Remember-1957
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-the-Sham-and-the-Pharaohs-1965-Wooly-Bully
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tex-Averys-Red-Hot-Riding-Hood
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tina-Turner-and-the-Ikettes-1971-Wanna-Take-You-Higher
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dancing-Woman-with-Flaming-HoopsCompelling-and-Beautiful
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Supremes-1964-Come-See-About-Me
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sylvie-Vartan-1968-Irresistiblement
http://www.videosift.com/video/Les-Miserable-Lea-Salonga-On-My-Own
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rolling-Stones-1978-Respectable

No it's not accurate. If it was I would be beheaded now because I live in a Islamic country. But strangely am not.

No, thats bad logic. its like saying "I've been smoking 2 packs a day for 20 years, and still havent got cancer, ergo, smoking doesnt cause cancer". I agree with the core proposition in this film: Islam is a dangerous ideology, and it is , as an idiology, fundamentally hostile to everything I hold dear.

This is not , and never will be, the same, or even comparable to saying "All muslims are evil" or any stupid shit like that.

Islam is an idea, a meme, a construct of ideas, not all of them are bad, not all of them stick in the minds of reasonable people. Clearly, Muslims, just like any political or religious groups, come in all shapes and sizes.

Imagine "Heinrich", your average German, 1935 National socialist party voter, would he be a wife-beater, a babykilling, murderous jew-hating zombie? Of course not, but the ideology he has bought into, that he is promoting, voting for, and helping to spread, is dangerous nonetheless.

If I made a similar film about nazism, would you say I was spreading lies and hatred about Heinrich and most Germans his age? Would my film be seen as a hate-mongering propaganda movie, and if thousands of angry Nazis threatened to kill me and lay waste to my civilization over that movie, would I, the hate-mongerer, be to blame?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'betty boop, cartoon, banned, racism, blackface' to 'betty boop, cartoon, banned, racism, blackface, 1935, 30s' - edited by schmawy

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gold-Diggers-of-1935-Highlights