it may be kind, but still, intentionally switching a quarterback out just so that he can get a touchdown because of a recent death in the family seems just a tad bit unnecessary and frivolous

your dad's dead..but hey, you got a touchdown...Life is even now right?


right?

republicans like to cling to the idea that they are the party of Lincoln. Back when when they actually were a decent party.

Most of my Republican friends are like this. They're decent, rational people, but they just continue to this hopeless romantic idea that the Party now is the same as it was in Lincoln's time. Heck, even in the 80's you might disagree with a Republican, but you could still have a rational discussion with them and agree on the same basic facts.

Even with Obama's first debate loss, most people know that Obama's probably going to win this election. The news media have a vested interest in pretending everything is super close, but if you actually take a look at the people who really understand this stuff. Lots of people, republicans included, think Obama's going to win this.

So...be prepared for a fresh round of conspiracy theories.

Be prepared for another frivolous impeachment attempt

and quite frankly, be prepared for an assassination attempt.

2016 is going to be the real election to watch. Now of course, democrats could fuck it up by putting forth another weak candidate like John Kerry again, but if Republicans can't win again, even with Obama out of the picture, yeah, I would agree that Republicans are done as a serious party.

The problem is, the Republicans have become the party of fear. And fear generally never goes away. You just change what you're afraid of.

I've got to agree with PBS on this. If it is frivolous for Romney to focus on Big Bird, isn't it just as frivolous for Obama to focus on Romney focusing on Big Bird? I also don't like that the commercial does not explicitly defend public television, it just uses it as a prop. Sesame Street is noble institution that shouldn't be dragged through the mud of politics.

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

This can be real! One just must be open minded to the possibly of making deals with frivolous demonic influences or a single crafty Djinn.

@kevingrr There are many cases where people who can't read were explicitly lied to about the content of the contract they were signing. That doesn't even address the needlessly complicated (dare I say obfuscated) nature of these contracts. They invented "the fine print." There is a legitimate argument to be made that the credit issuers were intentionally deceiving vulnerable populations who needed access to credit in order to feed their children, or provide them with shelter. It wasn't all frivolous spending.

Yes, surely this video is bringing the incredibly high standards at videosift down with its frivolity! Anyway, back to discussing our current No1, someone getting kicked in the balls...
>> ^Sagemind:

I don't understand. Why is this newsworthy.
Isn't she from Africa, wouldn't that be her native tongue?
Or are people somehow shocked that there are white people in Africa?

False, the court has ruled many times that the sixteenth amendment grants the federal government the right to collect a direct income tax. Arguments to the contrary have been routinely ruled as frivolous resulting in additional frivolity fines for wasting the court's time. That's how dumb these arguments are.

The IRS is just a bureau of the treasury. The treasury doesn't need a law telling it how it can organize itself. So long as it operates within the scope of its powers, it can create any bureaus it wants. Congress passes income tax rates any time they pass a tax bill, often with the annual budget (with the powers granted to it by the sixteenth amendment to the constitution). The IRS is part of the executive and thus is charged with enforcing congress' laws. It's as simple as that. These arguments hold no water whatsoever.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I agree!
I know of the Snipes story. It's sad.
I would value everyone's opinion with regards to this, but personally, I think this is a non-law that is strictly enforced.
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Right. Ok As nice as this sounds if you try not to pay you could end up in jail. There have been thousands of people who have tried it and thousands are now having to deal with the consequences of that stupidity. Wesley Snipes is one such person.

Bla Bla Bla

What did you say something?


>> ^enoch:

>> ^bobknight33:
They should have closed the libraries. Why should anyone be force to fund it or the arts or local ball park or football stadium. If people want it then form a group and fund it your self.

seriously bob?
well you go right ahead and keep that attitude.my boys and i will be by once a week for our 10% protection money.fire services are extra and dont even THINK about skimming off the top.
that will cost you a pinky finger.
an exercise performed in front of your family so they get the message as well.
whats that?
ooooooooh.you were just referring to the arts and sports!
you mean the facilities and activities that YOU are not interested or participate in!
taxing for police and fire are a social necessity but anything else is just frivolous nonsense.
i have to admit bob.
un-enlightened myopic self centeredness does not impress me.

>> ^bobknight33:

They should have closed the libraries. Why should anyone be force to fund it or the arts or local ball park or football stadium. If people want it then form a group and fund it your self.


seriously bob?
well you go right ahead and keep that attitude.my boys and i will be by once a week for our 10% protection money.fire services are extra and dont even THINK about skimming off the top.
that will cost you a pinky finger.
an exercise performed in front of your family so they get the message as well.

whats that?
ooooooooh.you were just referring to the arts and sports!
you mean the facilities and activities that YOU are not interested or participate in!
taxing for police and fire are a social necessity but anything else is just frivolous nonsense.

i have to admit bob.
un-enlightened myopic self centeredness does not impress me.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Absolutely would. We love stuff like this and like the annual pantsless subway ride specifically because we believe stuff like this could only happen in NYC.>> ^PlayhousePals:
Musta been tourists ... surely a true New Yorker would not succumb to such blatant frivolity [would they?] =oO



Good to know =o)

Absolutely would. We love stuff like this and like the annual pantsless subway ride specifically because we believe stuff like this could only happen in NYC.>> ^PlayhousePals:

Musta been tourists ... surely a true New Yorker would not succumb to such blatant frivolity [would they?] =oO

Once upon a time we had rules about frivolous polls.

In any case, yes, yes you do.

@renatojj

Your claim is that economic anarchy is more efficient than any system of rational control, and I say this must be false.

It's naive to presume that mutually beneficial agreements between individuals necessarily prove beneficial on a wider social scale; many economic transactions will benefit all directly involved parties while catastrophically harming others.

Ethically, it is appropriate to intervene in these transactions between free individuals where harm will come to a third party, especially where that third party is your whole society. Social harm is caused by production of frivolous luxuries like sports cars, both in terms of squandered labour that could have been used to enrich mankind and depletion of finite resources that belong to everybody. Everything from oil to aluminium is communal property; we all have equal claim to what's in our earth.

Even assuming their ability to do so, it ought to be obvious that wherever each individual has to make their own social benefit analysis of a transaction instead of referring to an authority; that is an immense, inefficient, duplication of effort. In such cases, the cost of servicing ones responsibilities may outweigh the gain in freedoms.

Freedom to hurt others is not a desirable condition. There is a school of thought that suggests preventing a murder is a violation of the rights of the murderer; I would hope you don't subscribe to that view.

Regarding ideological freedom, from which freedom of expression is quite distinct and unequivocally desirable - Yes, I oppose it for the same reasons.