>> ^Enzoblue:
I guess you have to ask yourself why this got censored. I mean really. Why do people find this more offensive than all the other stuff?

Redneck homophobia...

Ask that instead of banging your head against the wall like this guy. What is it about two men kissing in the context of high-end sexual perversion that repulses, when two women doing the same would cause the ratings would go up?


High end sexual perversion? Oh, you mean because two guys would end up anal fucking? You should really get out more, that's not high end sexual perversion my friend... 2 girls 1 cup ring any bells?


His incredulity is high because his logic fails. He's not accounting for all the factors, there's more to it than just a redneck hatred for gays.


So basically your entire 'debunk' is people object because the logical result of 2 guys kissing = teh buttsecks?

It says a lot about those people, they see two guys together and instantly visualise them banging away like a broken barnyard door. Might be because that's what they secretly want to see though... Bit of peaking out of the closet action? *grin*

Wow, that sucks. Forgive the cursory knowledge of the rules, but isn't a hand ball one of the worst offenses you could make in football aside from letting Elizabeth Lambert play on your team?

Neglegant Homicide

Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die.

A company that refuses to acknowledge the regulations is in criminal violation, however the burden of proof is on the regulators. The regulators need to prove that the company actively refuses to abide by the regulations.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

In the United States, exceptions to this general rule are found in cases such as Lambert v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes).

No employer is protected by the Ignorance defense. However the sentence may be less as strict provided the employer can prove their ignorance. Proof of willful ignorance is covered in the first part of my statement, in which case the employer is subject to stricter sentences.

NOTICE: I am not a lawyer. This statement is only an opinion that I express under the explicit protection of the 1st Amendment. Provided that the proprietor of this site does not deem my statement a violation of their Terms of Service.

Done. I don't like doing it upfront for videos that aren't direct dupes.
You could have duped it yourself, though. You can't only if the target video is yours. Not if the original

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
can someone dupeof this post?

>> ^imstellar28:
I agree with all manifestations of my own opinions, regardless of the consequences.
(guh)

That seems like an uncalled for swipe based on a failure of reading comprehension.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely

What part of that indicates "regardless of the consequences", or for that matter what my opinion is beyond classifying a subset of possible outcomes that I don't take issue with?

I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked power of eminent domain. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked right to property. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

To give my $0.02 on the Flight 93 memorial story, I think it's fishy that neither party was willing to disclose what's being offered for the land. Personally, I have trouble understanding why Lambert would be making a fuss about turning that area into a monument, other than because he's holding out for more money. Beyond that, I don't think I'm qualified to make a judgment on how the court case should be decided from just a single news article clearly aimed more at entertaining than informing.

As for the Kelo case KP linked, I also don't feel qualified to say how that should have been decided either, though that's certainly a much more contentious issue, and I'm not surprised it came down to a 5-4 split. As is usual, I don't care much for the fearmongering crap the conservative justices put in their opinions, especially when the majority's opinion specifies limitations and conditions on what sort of precedent they're intending to set.

However, the Wikipedia page's postmortem makes it clear that the City had not acted in good faith. Had Justice Kennedy's criteria been thoroughly looked through, they would have either been forced to handle the situation more equitably, or just lost the case outright. To me, that seems like a pretty straightforward list of things to look at if you're part of the Kelo legal team...

All that said, I prefer for eminent domain claims to be for public infrastructure, places of historical significance, and natural preservation (i.e. parks). Doing it for economic development seems questionable to me, but in my cursory reading of the decision, there appears to be existing precedent for it, and the Kelo case didn't modify that. My only real criticism of the decision is that they didn't make Kennedy's criteria binding for lower courts, which would help to root out cases where eminent domain is being used for evil selfish capitalist gain.

To counteract this effects of this video, I am going to go punch a puppy in the face and Adam Lambert in the nads.

Fun fact: "[Listerine was] [f]irst formulated by Dr. Joseph Lawrence and Jordan Wheat Lambert[2] in 1879 as a surgical antiseptic, it was given to dentists for oral care in 1895 and it was the first over-the-counter mouthwash sold in the United States in 1914. The mouthwash was named in honor of Dr. Joseph Lister, a pioneer of antiseptic surgery."

And he got to drain pus from TWO *British monarchs! Lucky devil!

Seriously, it's a *long story, but well worth the watch. Great find, Serious Surgeon.

First: Watch the movie Highlander, starring Christopher Lambert

Then you have two choices, the easy way, or the cheesy way.

For Easy Way: Proceed on to Highlander the series, starring Adrian Paul... it's fun, not so dark, highlander lite if you will, there's a lot of seasons, and its completely different than the movies but the characters are around longer so the stories are much more interesting. After this you may proceed on with the 2nd and 3rd movies.

For cheesy way: After the first movie, sit yer ass back down for Highlander 2, also starring Christopher Lambert. Watch the original version first, then the Director's Cut because you can see all the shit they were embarrassed about swept under a rug. Then proceed to the third movie that I barely remembered because it was so bad I must've gotten extremely intoxicated. After this test of fortitude, watch the series and enter the world of Highlander: lite... where you will be baffled as to how in the hell a death-metal-head-chopping flick like Highlander morphed into a cable-tv soap-drama!

Holy shit... I am a dork.

Anyway, if there are cartoons and more after that I cannot advise, as by the time the tv series ended I'd gotten a job and a car.

Lambert has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists. Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.

Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, most viewed religion in a favorable light. This is noted through their statements in speeches and correspondences in which they describe its role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington), its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin), and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams). Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

Christopher Lambert had the best glaring stare back in the 80's. Did everyone else mentally block out the sequels to this movie like I did?

edit: I remember that there were sequels....even went to the theater, bought the popcorn and everything. I cannot tell you one thing about them though

I'm not sure if the constitution is a bit miss leading (don't hold me on this, I haven't studied it). This thing about the second amendment is about in times of trouble or threat. This is from wikipedia

'The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications'.