The Shop Around the Corner from 1940 is only partially set during Christmas (the latter part of the movie) so it's not primarily about Christmas, though it does feel festive once it wraps up. You might want to check it out.
Maybe Miracle on 34th Street, either the 1947 version or the 1994 version (or both, why not).
You could probably milk double digit hours from various adaptations of A Christmas Carol alone, of which I seem to remember enjoying Scrooge from 1951.
Also A Christmas Story (1983) seems like it might fit the bill.
If you're hosting animated stuff too then you could probably find countless cartoon specials among old disney, loony tunes and WB stuff. This is a random Chip and Dale one I remember from when I was a kid.
Edit: also just stumbled on this YT collection of retro Christmas cartoons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=177VS5CILCk
Shame about the watermark, but maybe the playlist is a good reference.
Debooonked!!!
when repeating gay CNN shit that denies basic reality.
But that's anecdotal!
When disputing stuff that's been proven in the plainest scientific terms, years after it was already obvious to the public via 'anecdotes'. Fuck, I despise what MUH SCIENCE does to the midwit brain.
I said this in the 'UK Lying press' thread, but any appeal to science/medicine in politics or the media is just a truth-laundering tactic to gain power or spite power.
Searching in restricted time frames is the only way Google search is illustrative any more. This is what you get if you search paracetamol in pregnancy, capped off before the last few months, with even the Featured Snippet(tm) saying:
Several studies have found an association between paracetamol exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
As of yesterday, this is what it looks like with no time filter; no Featured Snippet summary, instead direct links to govt websites saying use of paracetamol pregnancy 'unchanged' and that it 'remains safe' via a helpful 'reminder' - lmao reminder! 'You KNEW this, you alllllways knew this.' Don't let Orinjmunbad and Croaky Bob the Vaxx-Thief disturb your sleep, fair sheep.
I have seen liberals respond to a hypothetical like this, with a completely straight face, that if some 'expert' said the sky was not blue - perhaps some sky expert or a colour expert, whatever those are - then they would accept that it is not blue.
This broken epistemology is at the root of almost all the problems in the world. A sentient person knows that humans have a shared concept of 'blue' which the sky fits easily into, and so any other definition for the colour of the sky, or of colour itself, is not meaningful. But there is a massive cohort of people who are so unthinking, insecure and deferential to authority, that their definition of the most basic things can be changed because 'labcoat shaman said AKSHULLY, so I say akshully too now'.
Practically all 'science'-based policy is worthless because schemers recognised the potential for manipulation. When science is appealed to in politics or the media, it is nothing more than a truth-laundering mechanism any more.
Reminder of this one dumbfounding fact:
This is an opposition party. This is how they choose to capitalise on the flatlining approval of Keir Starmer.
I will never move on. I consider the scamdemic as the most significant epistemological event in the history of the human race. Not a single part of it has been reckoned for yet. Every part of it that the establishment allows to be discussed in disgruntlement (now that we're 4-5 years out from the epicentre of retardation) is 100x worse than acknowledged, in reality.
It's not the same Naomi Beinhart, or at least they're trying to pretend it's not. Surely not even the MSM would try to pass this off as a 17 year old from the USA.
Hadn't listened to him but I searched his name on YT and now the algorithm is chucking his vids at me.
Here's his YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@AlexBelfieldTheVoiceOfReason/videos
Feel free to repost his shit far and wide to make the UK establishment seethe.
It's warranted. Part of his monologue is implying that the killer is MAGA, directly contradicting official info. Certainly if Obama hadn't maimed the Smith-Mundt act, there would be basis for questioning him and his writers to see where they got these lines from.
I will also be recommending that those funding Antifa be thoroughly investigated in accordance to the highest legal standards and practices
Huge X to doubt. The entire corporate world was involved in bailing out US antifa in 2020, is eg. Intel going to get investigated? How about Biden staff? Haven't there been also various influence maps showing that a massive portion of all journalists are only a degree or 2 of separation removed from antifa?
lobbyists and the deep state are going to make sure this 'recommendation' ends up as toilet paper and I doubt Kashvar Patelsson can pull it all off himself, any more than he's capable of reading the Epstein leaks before going on Joe Rogan.
Candace getting sued by Macron removes 99% of the doubt from the Trump phone call story. Getting sued by a foreign head of state for defamation is less likely than a phone call from the head of your own, since it is practically unprecedented, and is exactly the kind of thing which might prompt the call in the first place.
It's not even real but if it is then that's a good thing
The logo for this thing seems insanely disrespectful too. Bunch of stars and stripes flowing into the star of David. Don't mind me, just slurping up your flag bro.
Also in an amusing simulation glitch, their foreign minister is called 'Saar'
https://www.gov.il/en/pages/fm-sa-ar-addresses-delegation-of-250-us-state-legislators-15-sep-2025
Also it's crazy that tiktok has gone on such an Israel-defensive lockdown. Gone are the days when zoomers were making Hitler's speeches viral, I guess. They really took it over.
my guess is the accused killer will probably have been motivated more by Halo and similar fantasy role-play than by substantive political discord.
Ding Ding ding, we have a winner. This one accidentally hit the jackpot and revealed the crux of the argument:
AKSHULLY it wasn't a political assassination!
This is the only thing they can fall back on in their panicked cognitive dissonance, after having revealed that America is now a literal killing ground of the left's making. They pretend they haven't done that and that the murder was due to social and cultural factors.
The other flavour of this is the leftie side pretending that Kirk-types being pro-2A created a social factor of there being more guns around, which somehow passively got him killed as a dramatic irony. Except that the evidence of our own eyes is that it was a planned political assassination of a gun advocate. So the argument turns into 'if you're pro-2A, then you can't complain if you die by gunshot, even if it's me killing you with a gun for being pro-2A'.
For anyone to be bringing videogames into this as a factor, it's hard to look at them as anything other than deliberate obfuscators, which starts to get really weird when they're coming from the right. Could be that they too fear the obvious implications of Kirk's shooting, so they'll revert to their NPC subroutines rather than address reality.
It's an absolutely retarded point for them to bring into the discussion because in doing so they start to validate the claims of charlie's murderers, that there was some social or cultural factor in his death. Their lie is that it was 'guns' or 'hatred (by conservatives)' - 'well maybe video games' is just adding to the lie. It makes zero sense to do this in the context of an assassination. Literally fucking everybody knows he was killed for being Charlie Kirk, in a country where a great many people have proven they will celebrate the murder of an average conservative for the crime of being conservative.
All of this boils own to 'my source says...' vs 'nuh-uh', but Ackman's response rubs me the wrong way.
On the zoom, he explained to me that conservatives, in particular, young conservatives were getting tired of defending Israel, and this was very concerning to him. I asked him how I could learn more, and he suggested that it might be useful to convene a group of young conservative influencers on a host of topics that could include Israel to get a better sense of how the conservative community was thinking about Israel and other relevant issues of concern to young people.
In all his protestations about how no 'intervention' happened with Charlie, he seems unable to talk around the fact that one did in fact happen - it's just that his protestation is that the intervention was prompted by Charlie himself, and the intervention was against TPUSA itself or against growing youth anti-semitism as a whole. We're supposed to accept that Kirk himself was the driver for this and no reference is made to all the times that Jews have been mad at him.
Some participants were critical of Israel and U.S. support for Israel, and others were supportive.
The sessions were punctuated by meals. I attended one group lunch and a group dinner where I sat with Charlie and others.
I found the sessions I attended interesting and I really enjoyed meeting the influencers. It gave me considerable perspective on what is on the mind of young Americans on a wide range of issues.
At the end of the event, I sat with Charlie and members of my team and we discussed the events of the convening. Charlie believed that he had identified a number of potential Turning Point ambassadors who could launch open mic events on campus and that he would follow up with them.
And he expects us to believe that all of this was super chill and involved no pressure, that he was totally cool with 'Some participants [being] critical of Israel' and that the purpose was not specifically to shape the future direction of TPUSA to be more pro-Israel.
We know this is not how things are done. At their most benign, Jewish ideas to reduce anti-semitism can still get wacky and deceptive, such as Mike Benz's alt-right alterego which he now claims was all about saving Jews. We know the spectrum extends way off in the opposite direction from benignancy too. Ackman is asking us to swallow a horse by acting like there was no pressure here. No money mentioned either apparently.
Currently the 'free marketplace of ideas' is a field with an arrow saying 'conservatives stand here' while leftists at the edges wait watching with sniper rifles. It's a one way death trap until a purge occurs.
Those of the tepid normie conservatives who are still urging a commitment to discussion and debate may not realise how irresponsible they're being. If they convince one single right leaning person to keep engaging in open debate, in a setting that eventually gets them killed, then that blood is on their hands at this stage. There's no excuse not to understand the threat at this stage. 'Get away from them' is the most civil message that can be excused, with plenty less civil ones favoured.
Where is the FBI?
At a guess, same place they were for the Buffalo shooter where he was verifiably being groomed in a discord server by unidentified parties. So then, 'in the same discord which they're now trying to cover up' would be the answer.
you didn't say anything in response to my post other than 'nuh uh' and your dumb line about political assassination being the same as general gun crime. you're simply retarded or a masochistic shill, suck my dick
you already gave up, retard, go nudge narratives and play pretend in a more visible comment chain
As disgusting and retarded as that sub is, if it were a based around what the left is currently doing with Kirk, they would essentially be laughing and meming about murders committed by their very own posters.
Edit: I mean it's academic anyway. It's all exactly the same people lol
beep boop, argument not found, non sequitur activated
No, I don't buy this single digit IQ act, you do support the assassination of your political opponents. You don't really think that some infant in a kindergarten is affected by the same or similar mortality risk factors as a victim of political murder. You can stop pretending to be this stupid now.
Dying to a gunshot by accident or suicide, dying because you're a child who finds an unsecured gun, dying in a mass shooting, dying because a cop shot you for whatever reason, dying because a criminal chose to shoot you with an unregistered firearm, dying to a shot from a legal concealed carry weapon regardless of justification - all of these are examples of deaths that can be made less likely by restricting gun ownership in a society, albeit with the tradeoff of altering death risk in other ways.
Someone killed by a political enemy - an enemy who can take their entire lifetime to plot the murder should they wish to, using any method they wish to, for the motive of say, ooooooh idk, silencing a proponent of gun ownership - is not affected by any of these risks. They are also not protected by the supposed security offered by firearms restrictions, since the determined assassin can pick any method they want, including making their own gun from scratch as with Shinzo Abe. And of course, a political target is in fact much more likely to benefit from the intended purpose of legal gun ownership which is self-defence, via armed security. The only reason Kirk didn't have this defence in his favour was because he was such a retarded political target for the left, that I guess nobody thought to take the precaution. Nevertheless, he was targeted and every conservative will go that far and further to defend against political violence in future.
You know all these obvious facts of course. I just went through the effort of spelling it out so that your next mental gymnastics will have to be all the more elaborate. Go on, roll around.
They're apparently keeping the memory of Charlie Kirk alive by recommending and demonstrating that conservatives keep going out peacefully and offering themselves up to be shot in hostile crowds. If they're also being astroturfed, then this utterly reeks of a 'calm down, lower the temperature' type psyop. Otherwise absolute cucks who have fallen for one.