you tryin to troll me sexy thang?

Considering it's my submitted sift, I'd say it's the opposite, except I don't accuse anyone of trolling.

well aint you just the cutest!
but i think you may have me confused with someone else.

That would assume I know who you are to begin with.

my analogy is correct and you know it.
but this man has a right to say his piece and if you wish to use his second hand hearsay as a validation for your opinion,well then go right ahead but dont cry when someone tears your entire premise apart.

At no point did I say this guy's 'hearsay' (you spelled it correctly) was 100% Truth. HOWEVER this is not the first time or source I've heard/read that this is what the Secret Service agents thought of their bosses and they seem to match up. And I think on some level YOU know this guy's hitting it close to the mark. I can't imagine an imperious Hillary ever giving a shit about the 'hired help' and I can see Bubba stockpiling Twinkies in the Oval Office desk.

geez QM dont take it so personal.i was commenting on the video not attacking you for christ sakes.
why you getting all defensive-like?
this your brother in law or something?

Anyone who wants to get to something approaching the truth has to wade through liberal lies (and hearsay) all day long. Remember Bush saying of the Constitution, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Except he didn't.

It's not like both sides don't enjoy a good "rumor", but EVERY election cycle do we have to hear from taxocrats about how evil Republicans are planning on "scrapping" Social Security and putting the elderly in camps?

See, our problem isn't a man in an oval office. It is the abuse of our people by our people. I don't mind helping the poor, but what happens when our policies are meant to create poor? What happens when the government wants people to stay down by creating an education that promotes stupidity? As it has... I personally don't mind "entitlements" because we pay for them through taxes--social security, unemployment insurance, medicare/medicade, etc. But when does that end? Until we answer this (And it is a critical question) we will slide as a nation.

And "entitlements" also include artificially low tax rates for the rich (And poor.)

I speak to people on the street @NetRunner and they disgust me. Where you might see polite indifference I see ungrateful stupidity. Cutting in my line? Not that big a deal...except that's the way of life for our people, not a one-time occurrence. How did the debate become so simple? Raise taxes, build unions and universal healthcare versus cut taxes, free-market, personal responsibility. Does everything break down to this high school level prom-running event?

Call it pessimism or fatalism (Which it is not since I am trying to affect change for the better) but we complain like Rome when it fell--not like we should, not in a healthy way...

Sorry for the rant, which this last section was.

*promote *money
I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column about corporate personhood earlier this year.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/hale-let-the-corporations-have-their-rights-role-in-government-1.2531819

It would be interesting if corporations weren't people. But they are.

The aftermath of a few slapdash U.S. Supreme Court decisions means that today's companies resemble citizens more and more. And, much like the pigs and men sitting at the table in "Animal Farm," it is already impossible to determine which is which.

A few key court decisions sowed the seeds for corporate personhood. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), it was ruled that a private business was exempt from state laws seeking to interfere with established contracts. In other words, the court ruled, states can't pass laws that impair business contracts.

In 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision — and its implications were huge — granted corporations the rights of citizenship.

Just last year the Supreme Court ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that First Amendment rights should be extended to corporations. The floodgate of contributions — mostly anonymous — helped sweep the Tea Party to power and shake up the status quo in Washington, D.C.

It won't be long until corporations are extended Constitutional protections enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Rather than stall sharing our rights with big business, perhaps we should endorse it.

Surely, the National Rifle Association would have no qualm extending Second Amendment rights to big businesses. They may argue corporations should enjoy the same protections our forefathers had. After all, they'll say, why should corporations have to only rely on banks and lobbyists to protect their interests? They're guaranteed to blanket their members with pro-corporate paraphernalia backing whichever businesses packs the most heat. And nothing short of San Francisco can stop the NRA.

As soon as Constitutional rights are extended to corporations, they should be able to run for president. Foreign companies — much like Arnold Schwarzenegger — need not apply.

Rather than spending money for voters to elect whichever presidential candidates get the most campaign contributions and airtimes, corporations could cut out the middle man and invest in their own campaigns.

Congress is guaranteed to be friendly to a corporation in the Oval Office. Two corporations — a president and a vice president — could help put an end to wasteful government spending by working closely with legislation. Most legislators already nip at the bit for corporate donations; it's essential to winning. Corporations would bridge the aisle between Democrats and Republicans better than George Washington.

Boeing Co., the world's largest plane manufacturer, would never land billions of dollars' worth of imprudent government contracts to build impractical engines if the money were coming out of their own pockets, so to speak. And Congress would never again have to pursue worthless pet projects to keep jobs in their state, because worthless pet projects would cost corporate White House money.

Every "bridge to nowhere" must have a strip mall at the end.

As is, a majority of the Supreme Court already defers status to big business over citizens, and it wouldn't take too long until the minority could be replaced. The awesome powers of a corporate-backed executive branch, marching in lockstep with the legislative and judicial, would outrival any nation. Even China would eventually owe us money.

Of course, a business oligarchy is probably not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution originally intended for us. But lesser nations have endured far more with far less. And who among us doesn't want what's best for us?

Critics of corporate personhood want to amend the U.S Constitution to limit the rights of corporations. They argue that corporations, because their sole purpose is to make a profit, shouldn't have the same rights as you or I.

These critics are especially alarmed that corporations can make significantly larger political contributions than individual citizens. Some critics say that this is just one example where the rights of corporations actually exceed the rights of citizens. It does seem lopsided. But with such a global competitive market, how else can we compete with other countries?

Maybe corporate personhood isn't such a bad idea after all. What else could unite Americans more than having Coke and Pepsi run on the same ticket?

If a corporation were president it just might invest more time and more money at home. Then, maybe, we could all sit at the table.

As much as I wouldn't like it, that does sound pretty epic.
>> ^cito:

Toward the end of the movie they drag Obama out of the oval office and hang him up from the white house eaves on the front lawn.
epic fucking movie!

Toward the end of the movie they drag Obama out of the oval office and hang him up from the white house eaves on the front lawn.

epic fucking movie!

I'm with you. These atheists have taken it way too far. I brought it up with some mixed religious/atheist friends last night and we all sided with Perry.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Fox completely misrepresented this whole story, and it's actually a government funded event to be held in the oval office itself, campaign donations to be solicited.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^messenger:
I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?

I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.
Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?
It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."
I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.
Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.

I'm no mathematician, but I think ovals can have one or two foci (at least that's what the wikipedia page seems to suggest).

>> ^messenger:

No. He should have said, "Stupid kid. Ovals don't have foci. That's ellipses. Pown3d!">> ^Lawdeedaw:
He should have done like Homer Simpson. "Why you little!"

No. He should have said, "Stupid kid. Ovals don't have foci. That's ellipses. Pown3d!">> ^Lawdeedaw:

He should have done like Homer Simpson. "Why you little!"

There is no drafting effect in play when moving this slowly and at some points STOPPED.

The issue with being in front is that not only do you have to ride, steer, forward, you also have to be aware and even look back at the opponent to prevent them from passing you, detracting you from just pedaling as hard as possible and going forward (what the race should be)

It is interesting, but I don't see how it warrants a "Race" or sport. IF they wanted a sprint competition, they should just have a straight track equal to 1 lap of this oval, and let them "drag race" it out. While the strategy and stress of being in front or back is interesting, it plays out as very silly and unsportsmanlike. "I am going to try to get behind so I can win".

I did enjoy the video and did upvote;)

Clinton has inappropriate physical contact with aides in the oval office, and lies about it under oath. He's praised for his statesmanship.

Wiener takes some pictures in the gym, and lies to the media. He's thrown under the bus.

Since when is it worse to lie to Andrew Breitbart than in a court of law?

Gosh I just don't care about what he did. It doesn't bother me. Is that strange, or do others feel the same?

He was so sharp on the floor sometimes, debating issues others would roll over on. I can't help but imagine - in some alternate universe - how Weiner might have handled this totally differently. For example, instead of the denials and flip-flopping, Weiner could have said from the very beginning: "This is none of your damned business.... I can't believe your asking this." (Which is pretty much what George Bush Sr. said in the '90s when confronted by press about a likely affair.)

Every one of the charges could be answered with that response. It really is none of our business. Even if he took a cell phone shot of his d-ck in the goddamn oval office. Who cares? Because it's public property? I say it again - WHO CARES? It's just sex. Why get hung up on any of it (unless you're his wife)? There's no indication it was affecting his job.

"None of your damned business." If he'd said that (and meant it!), sure, his career would probably still have tanked. But, in some circles at least, he'd be a bit of a folk hero.

I can only conclude Weiner must be dealing with some powerful sexual guilt issues to lose all his nerve when confronted with his own behavior. The irony, of course, is - it's our own culture's guilt and discomfort with sex that drove this to become such a public issue for him in the first place.

>> ^bmacs27:

@blankfist As far as free expression rights are concerned, they are the same thing. It is government property that has a purpose incompatible with free expression. That is, they are both government property classified as a "nonpublic forum." So what is your problem? Is it the existence of nonpublic forums? Or is it that such a designation was applied to this particular memorial?
That is, how would you change the law to be compatible with your views? If you can't articulate that, you aren't protesting anything. You're whining just like the rest of the tea party.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a no-prize winner. If I'm not okay with anti-dancing laws at the Jefferson Memorial I must be Tea Partier! Brilliant.

I have answered this already. I wouldn't "change the law" at all. I don't think there should be a law prohibiting dancing on public property. Period. I don't care if the government claims it's something they like to call 'nonpublic forum', because it's still a place designed for the public to visit. It was never intended to be like NORAD or the Oval Office. It was intended for the people.

I'll wait for your next strawman.

>> ^bmacs27:

@blankfist You're argument is bunk. It's not public property, it's government property. Try having a dance party in the Oval Office, or NORAD, or even a busy intersection to highlight your freedom of expression and see how far that gets you. As far as first amendment rights are concerned, they are equivalent.


I didn't know NORAD was a monument open to the public. Good to know it's exactly the same as the Jefferson Memorial.

@blankfist You're argument is bunk. It's not public property, it's government property. Try having a dance party in the Oval Office, or NORAD, or even a busy intersection to highlight your freedom of expression and see how far that gets you. As far as first amendment rights are concerned, they are equivalent.

http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1141b-1.html

U.S. taxpayers are not responsible for solving the world's health problems. HIV and AIDS are not among the ten leading causes of mortality in the U.S., yet receive considerable amounts of federal research dollars. Compared to the number of lives that cancer and heart disease claim each year, HIV/AIDS research received a disproportionate amount of federal funding. The federal government should reduce AIDS research funding and divert money to research programs fighting more pressing diseases such as heart disease and cancer, which claim hundreds of thousands more American lives annually. Furthermore, unlike many other diseases, a majority of HIV/AIDS cases can be avoided by abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact and intravenous drug use.

Around the globe, 2.6 million people died of AIDS in 1999.

It is estimated that 16,000 people are newly infected with HIV each day throughout the world.

In 1997, 16,516 Americans died of AIDS.

In 1997, heart disease claimed 726,974 lives.

Between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are currently infected with HIV.

For fiscal year 1999, the federal budget allocated $6 billion to AIDS research and education.

The National Cancer Institute's 1999 operating budget was $2.9 billion.



Besmirching one of America's greatest presidents is easier than exalting the clueless idiot in the Oval Office now.