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

Kind of a mini-Lana Del Rey, (who is also inspired by Nancy Sinatra)

Your video, Angelina Jordan Does Nancy Sinatra Better than Nancy Sinatra, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ewwww, WHo??, Nancy Drew!?

That's your interpretation of a comment that has no basis in the personal observation or critique. No hate. No cry of "piece of shit'. She looks like she's having fun, her dancing is mediocre, and she'd be hired on-the-spot at a mediocre strip joint, as she seems to exude sexuality and enjoy flaunting it on camera for the world. She seems to appreciate, as does Zawash, her own ass quite a bit. Didn't say she wasn't comely, only critiquing her moves compared to what?? It's an opinion Yogi, based on a personal preference.
What is , 'professional' anyway Yogi? What IS Dancing? Where's the degradation beyond your perception of my comparative analysis and perhaps a personal preference for red-heads from Ireland??

The chicks' having fun with her pal, who is in my estimation, is a much groovier dancer. Feeeeel better now Nancy??

And for those that want a more modern take, Alice in Chains, Gretchen Wilson and Nancy Wilson play Barracuda together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqQkECIn738

Since when did Nancy Grace turn into a guy?

I was surprised that 10 states had changed the laws surrounding drug regulation in 79, and then got reversed (fuck you, Nancy Reagan).
Was glad they mentioned the prison element as well, at least a little bit, because I definitely see conflicts of interest when for-profit prisons directly benefit from drug regulation.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny


Even one humanbeing left without a basic health care is a travesty in a civilized country. This really baffles me, how can US even consider of not providing a basic human rights to all it's citizens. In my opinion the basic human needs are food, shelter and heatlhcare. The obejctive is that everyone can provide themselves with the first two while the healthcare is in the hands of professionals. You can claim that then goverment should provide free housing for all by employing professional constructor workers following the same logic that healthcare is done by professionals for free. Not all things are comparable, you can spend your night on a floor and be safe from the enviroment but you can't patch a guy up with staples and tape when he had a nasty fall and broke his leg.. Shelter can be variable as long as it fills the purpose but denying healthcare will kill humanbeings, you're fellow men and women.



We can take care of healthcare for all in every G20 country. And since we can do it, it's then mandatory. Like if we would get free unlimited energy logic will dictate that it will be ditributed to all, it never ends, it's free and there is no real reason to not give it out. Unless one man denys the service because of his own petty jealousy, anger, racism, or religious reasons. Those four things is what stops the regular US citizen from accepting a true humanitray cause, YOU DON*T WANT YOUR FELLOW HUMANBEING GETTING THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRVILEGES THAN YOU!!! It doesn't matter what your reasonings are, the trhuth is that you are an evil humanbeing that deliberately hurts all less fortunate than you. You get kick out of it, you enjoy looking at homeless, you spit on them and would no doubt just kill them in a whim, they are not humanbeings to you. Only your family and you are considered the right to get everything you want. No one else can, it's deminish your own ego.

This is my take on healthcare, anyone denying it is a monster. if you really want, we will leave you opt-out plan too, take care of your self if you like, hell we can even give you the money back you would normally spend for others (those cockraoches you know, people who don't deserve to live..)

How do you figure Healthcare is affordable to the average citizen?

Helthcare ranges from $13,375 to $20,000 for the average family
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/29/pf/healthcare-costs/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Even at $50,000 income per year,(which is peanuts these days by the way,) the average family cannot afford this.
And then, if they did sacrifice all other basic amenities to pay the health care costs, The insurance companies do whatever they can to deny claims and the basic care they deserve. The first thing that's asked is, "Does your policy cover this?" and if not, guess what, you still don't get treatment and someone can and has died.

That's Fact!
Health Care on any level is a human right not a present to be given to the select few who hold all the cash.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.

"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.
"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.
About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.
Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.
Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.
The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."
--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

You know I never pimp vids(even when i should) DO NOT miss this one bub : )
Madonna vs Nancy Sinatra/Kill Bill "Big Bang Theory"

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I might as well listen to this again and invoke *quality

You are too kind sir.

"The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell - 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Given the disclaimer, “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it's hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably interpret it as "stating actual fact". Even outside the context of Hustler magazine without the disclaimer (which probably should have been part of the image itself), photoshopped images like this are usually pretty obvious. I haven't been able to find an uncensored version of it, though, so I can't really say, but assuming the editing is obvious, the above argument still holds.

Cenk's point about the image being circulated without their permission is a good one. Clearly you couldn't hold Hustler Magazine accountable for unlicensed distribution, any more than you can hold an ammunition manufacturer accountable for a murder committed with one of their products.

I think one could make a valid legal argument against Hustler if, for instance, an image of her being gang-raped was created and published. In that case, there would be a further issue of promoting violence in general, and upon her in particular. I don't know if it would work, but I think the argument could be made.

All that said, this is really slimy, even for Larry. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone denouncing the image and the actions of the creator/publisher.

And to answer your question @bobknight33, "if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy [sic], Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok[?]," - for the first three, legally yes, but also just as slimy, laughable, and worthy of ridicule/shaming. A mom who isn't a public figure is red herring in this context, but nice try at the emotional jab.

i like how you assume i look up to michelle obama, nancy polosi, or hillary clinton or that my sentiment comes from the fact that S E cupp is women.

if you say vapid, dangerous shit, especially if you say vapid, dangerous shit professionally, you probably need a cock in the mouth. left or right, male or female, straight or gay.

i'm consistent in my distaste for people.

>> ^bobknight33:

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?

Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.

>> ^kir_mokum:
sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?


Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.


>> ^kir_mokum:

sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.