In just days after it was posted 91 mental health professionals have already signed the petition declaring that Trump is showing multiple signs of full blown advanced dementia, not just misstatements, not just the slurring, not just forgetting who is who and mixing up names and actions, but real, clinical, FULL BLOWN ADVANCED DEMENTIA.
This is not a “diagnosis”, but educated observations by trained professionals that would insist on full cognitive testing if he was their patient.
Trump claims he passed a cognitive test 4+ years ago but never proved it, let him take one on tv. Won’t happen.
Watch, he won’t debate Joe either, because he can’t and his full blown dementia would be in stark contrast to Joe being not just lucid but also knowledgeable.

Bonus- Habba and Robert are in HUGE trouble for not disclosing the perjury they suborned by using Wiesselberg’s false testimony and refused to respond to Engoron when he directly asked them about it. Weisselberg has now pleaded guilty to committing more perjury for Don Trump in this case, perjury which would have increased the award/fine had it been disclosed before the judgement was handed down. They are likely to be disbarred, possibly prosecuted, possibly even fined for the full amount they just stole from NY state by lying in court….hundreds of millions MORE. 😂

Now the prosecutors have every person in the Trump org who was involved in the illegal payoff of the pornstar Trump humped while Melania gave birth either itching to testify like Cohen or terrified they will die in Rikers island if they lie again like Wiesselberg (facing another 10 months already with more to come). Also David Pecker of the National Inquirer who will testify to the catch and kill program he ran of paying accusers for exclusive rights to their stories of being sexually abused by Trump then never running them (sounds a lot like that Hunter’s laptop story that you say was Biden cheating his way into the whitehouse, doesn’t it, except this isn’t a fraudulent bit of “evidence “ produced by Russians, it’s numerous American citizens with evidence…every accusation you make is an admission.). And multiple VPs and lower with knowledge of the illegal schemes. (All of these no longer have a job with Trump since he’s barred from his businesses now and the Trump org is defunked). He has until Thursday to post $83.5 million + interest (or Carroll starts selling buildings), and about 3 weeks for another $450 million+-. That criminal case starts in 3 weeks, right around the time Trump will default on his judgement to New York and what’s left of his properties will be seized. He can’t weasel his way out of all of them, no matter how many complicit judges he packed the courts with. His record in the courts has been abysmal so far.

Bonus - NEW perjury charges for felon Chesebro in Nevada after his secret Twitter and other accounts he claimed under oath didn’t exist and that completely contradict his self serving testimony in multiple criminal cases, and prove he was directly involved in what he knew was an illegal attempt to subvert democracy and use fake documents and electors to falsely install the election loser as the president were discovered.

Lemme guess…every single MAGGOT in the inner circle getting convicted of (usually pleading guilty) perjury (and many other felonies) for telling the same lies you believe in court doesn’t give you a single pause about Trump’s “best people”.

Wow…the abject failure of the “blacks for Trump” frauds this week are hilarious, from a “blacks for Trump” event where the only black people attending were the two on stage with Trump to the hilarious AI generated images of Trump hanging with black folks who have 3 arms and gibberish on their hats/shirts showing exactly how comfortable he is with real black people. 😂

What if it comes with a contractual requirement that you personally stop engaging in any activities which might infringe on their exclusive right to worry your mother? Feels like a trap to me.

Why is this tagged NSFW? Am I missing something racy beyond implications in the lyrics?

Sweet Zombie Jebus...
The hospital that treated her is now the subject of dozens (or more) terroristic death threats, and a threat of a lawsuit from some of Trump's lawyers, because they didn't just treat her with cattle dewormer.

Your people, @bobknight33, terrorists making death and bomb threats to doctors killing themselves treating almost exclusively right wing assholes who won't get vaccinated.

They should be turned away at the door, go home to your family and die. Their stupidity and inaction caused their illness. I fully support no hospitalization without a covid passport...it's too dangerous, they have immunocompromised people in there they should protect from the intentionally infectious. Put them in a camp like they suggest for immigrants....Better, ship them to Mexico with a lengthy process to return after they're covid free.

Don't count the unvaccinated, and Covid is under control.

HBO? When did it move to HBO?

On August 13, 2015, as part of a five-year programming and development deal, Sesame Workshop announced that first-run episodes of Sesame Street would move to premium television service HBO beginning with season 46, which premiered on January 16, 2016. HBO will hold first-run rights to all newer episodes of the series, after which they will air on PBS member stations following a nine-month exclusivity window, with no charge to the stations for airing the content. The agreement also gives HBO exclusive rights to stream past and future Sesame Street episodes on HBO Go and HBO Now – assuming those rights from Amazon Video and Netflix; on August 14, Sesame Workshop announced that it would phase out its in-house subscription streaming service, Sesame Go, as a standalone service; the service will remain in operation, likely with its offerings reduced to a slate content available for free or serving as a portal for Sesame Street's website.

The deal came in the wake of cutbacks that had affected the series in recent years, the changing viewer habits of American children in the previous ten years, and Sesame Workshop's dependence upon revenue from DVD sales.

/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street

Australia. The show's probably been licensed to a cable provider here with exclusivity rights. Much more likely to happen in a majority english speaking country because there's generally more likely to be a market for this kind of show.

Where do you come up with this crap?

Democrats did not denounce God. WTF lol

You also don't unilaterally decide what is and isn't constitutional, nor do you get to claim your side has exclusive rights as the constitution defenders. You get that, right? Of course not.

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans stand for murder, perversion, and debauchery. Wow!

There are corrupt politicians in both parties. There is also systemic corruption within our political system that should be addressed. There's no question about that.

But wow, are you sure the tin foil you're putting around your head isn't laced with lead?!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

videosift.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of Viacom Inc. (Viacom). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that I am authorized to act on behalf of Viacom, the owner of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice, and that the information in this notice is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

A search has detected that your web site, videosift.com, is hosting and/or linking to material that infringes Viacom’s exclusive rights in copyrighted work(s). The information provided below is a non-exhaustive, representative list of the Viacom copyrighted work(s) infringed by videosift.com, as well as the links and/or URLs corresponding to each listed infringement.

I have a good faith belief that the Viacom copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice of infringement has not been authorized for use or distribution via videosift.com by Viacom, its agent or the law. Therefore, I request that you immediately remove or otherwise disable access to the infringing material identified in this notice, and cease and desist from any further infringement of Viacom’s copyrighted work(s).

In complying with this notice, videosift.com should not destroy any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of the infringing items on videosift.com, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

Nothing in this notice shall absolve you of any affirmative obligation to prevent or limit the infringement of Viacom’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) irrespective of whether you receive a notice of infringement for a specific work. Moreover, this notice is not intended as a full statement of the facts, and does not constitute a waiver of Viacom’s right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities occurring on your network or site. All such rights, as well as claims for any other relief, are expressly reserved by Viacom.

If you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

Sincerely,

Brad Bo
On behalf of Vobile as an agent for Viacom
2880 Lakeside Drive, Ste 360
Santa Clara, CA 95054
v: (408) 217-5000
agent@viacom.copyright-notice.com


Infringed Viacom property and URL/location of infringing content to be disabled or removed:
ColbertReport

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT


*kill

Also on a separate note, Indigo Books and Music has joined forces with U.S. bookstore chain Barnes & Noble in refusing to stock or sell any books published by online rival Amazon.com. This is in protest to Amazon using predatory tactics that weaken an already struggling book industry. Citing the online company’s policy of reserving exclusive rights to sell e-books produced by Amazon's new publishing arm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/indigo-joins-growing-boycott-of-books-published-by-amazoncom/article543954/


Not banning per say but a definitely proof that, we can only access what is offered to us.

I agree.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Fucking copyright.

Copyright should be bound to the creator of the work, and expire when the creator dies. That's the only reasonable way to have copyright.

"Most laws are written on one page, the exceptions are written on 300 pages."

http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-Copyright-Law-and-Exclusive-Rights

Check this one out: http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-Copyright-Law-and-Exclusive-Rights

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
I've gotta know, how on earth did you come across this video?

>> ^Sagemind:

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.
Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-
back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article


Seems like the UN is bigger than the IOC. Couldn't we just tell them "Fuck you we're not putting up with your shit!." I mean it's not like they have an army or anything, and I'm really sick of corporations ruling everyone.

I'm also sick of the Olympics not being about Amateurs anymore...it should be 100% non-professionals!

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.

Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article

If you read the language carefully:

"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

It says it does not "easily" equate with the definition, it doesn't say it does not equate at all. Obviously there is equivilence between theft and taking something that does not belong to you. You can steal something without depriving someone of physical property. You can steal an idea, for instance. You can steal someones identity. You can also steal data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_asset

Intellectual property is considered an intangible asset, meaning that while it has no real physical existence, the time or effort placed into it makes it a seperate asset. This includes intellectual property. Since the content creators have exclusive rights to their intellectual property, you are causing a loss to their intangible assets. Therefore, it is theft.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization.

Right, that's basically my point. He doesn't seem to think war is bad because it kills people, he thinks it's bad because it conflicts with his ideology about the proper role of government.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

All I hear in there is "he doesn't want to abruptly end them, he just wants to slowly phase them out", which if you were objective about it means that he's more worried about a popular backlash stopping the destruction of the social safety net, and not actually in favor of preserving them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.

This is potentially the beginning of a really long conversation, but to be short about it, what is law for if not an attempt to create justice in a society? What is justice if not applied morality? Yes, no single person or institution should get the exclusive right to decide what is and isn't moral, but single people and institutions get to make important decisions that impact lots of people, and I think it's safe to say that we want them to make those decisions in a way that's compatible with the morals of the people who entrusted them with the power to make those decisions.

In other words, if Paul wants the codes to the nuclear weapons, Paul's personal code of ethics matters a great fucking deal if he wants me to achieve that power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company.

I do, and that's the thing that bothers me. Take John Tate, who runs C4L. Not a day goes by that I don't get e-mail from him that a) refers to the left as statists, socialists, or tyrants, b) lies about legislation that Democrats are or have proposed, and c) promotes a wide array of pro-corporate Republican policies.

Take Peter Schiff, who's lost his clients' a truckload of money betting on hyperinflation, and who goes on TV constantly to try to sell people on the idea that hyperinflation is around the corner, will destroy America as we know it forever, and that you can protect yourself by buying gold from his website.

Those are just the ones I recall clearly, but I remember there being quite a list of shady characters he'd brought into his campaign in 2008.

Yes, he sometimes "stands with" Kucinich or Nader on an issue, but it's never some positive proposal they want to try to work on passing together. Instead, it's always a case of Kucinich or Nader objecting to something the Democratic party is doing, and Ron Paul "stands with them" in an attempt to try to win some converts amongst liberals frustrated with Democrats.

IMO, he's very, very untrustworthy. I've had plenty of experience with sociopaths, and I quite seriously get that vibe from Ron Paul.