Sorry, I just... this is fucking horrible.

I accidentally upvoted it and it's genuinely upsetting to me how unbelievably awful this is.

And I don't even hate Sting, but this..... it's just a travesty.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad both Jimi and SRV are dead, purely so they don't have to see this abortion of something beautiful they created.

I'm very glad to hear it...thank you.

I hope you and yours are doing well.

Still moving stuff to get down to the waterline here. With newly arrived help should make it today. SRV said it right.

After the last one here on the sift (her covering Hendrix's Voodoo Chile), I did a YT search and found this one and others. I like her taste in music (Hendrix, SRV, Joe Satriani, Eric Johnson, etc.) and her skill with this instrument (Gayageum) -- follow oritteropo's advice and search for more if this was your cup of tea!

Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women

It would be more accurate to say that LIBERAL women agree with these LIBERAL pundits that there is some mythical GOP "war on women". The so-called poll you reference is a single poll conducted by ABC was oversampled with LIBERAL women. The overall numbers show Obama having no significant lead (49 to 45 = insignificant) among women.

Still in denial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_04082012.html

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as (a Democrat), (a Republican), an independent or what?
Democrat Republican Independent Other (vol.) No opinion
4/18/12 34 23 34 5 3

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample? This poll's results were 100% unadulterated bullcrap, and they were used deliberately to reinforce the false claim that the Democrats are desperately peddling about this bogus, completely farcical "war on women". The whole "War on women" is a line of leftist propoganda that is being used as a distraction to try and talk about anything EXCEPT Barak Obama's record of failure, incompetence, and the REAL "war" in America, which is Odumbo's war on the economy with his stupid moron idiot policies.

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?

>> ^quantumushroom:

A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.

^longde:
Oooh and the schools could actively promote corporations that they find favorable - the kids don't have to buy from them. Hell, let's just turn the whole school into a free for all promoting gig for any particular flavor of the week that the school board happens to like at the moment - fuck equality!




What do you mean "could"? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/colawars032399.htm

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

Why does this experiment make some white, male videosifters so uncomfortable? Why the eagerness to doubt the results? Misogyny, violence towards women and indifference towards human suffering are common recurring themes within our species; and there have been plenty of news stories over the years about people getting beaten or raped in front of indifferent or frightened crowds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/woodstock29.htm

And why is this probie (bareboards) getting beaten up (in front of a crowd) by VS veterans? It's fair for him to find blankfist's purposely misogynist comment creepy. Isn't that the point of this kind of provocative humor in the first place? Also, he isn't censoring anything. Dag and Lucky are the only people who have the ability censor on this site. Free speech doesn't shield you from criticism, and criticism isn't censorship.

Here's how you can figure out what the bill means specifically for you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you

(via here)

SRV rocks. Not many people on this earth, who come close to playing that well live.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The answer is yes - of course Al Franken is just as guilty of cherry picking his numbers. I don't care what system you talk about, there is no such thing (statistically) as a ZERO when you are talking about a population in the millions. He's either making that up, or using some report that excludes medical bankruptcies. It doesn't matter what system the U.S. cooks up in Congress - there is never going to be a single day in the entire history of humankind that there will be 'zero medical bankruptcies' in the U.S. Such a claim is absolute bunk based on "cherry picking" how you define bankruptcy.

All untrue, except possibly for the last sentence. Note that the Fraser Institute's study (and BTW, Fraser is a Canadian version of CATO), doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

It doesn't define "medical bankruptcy" at all, nor does it attempt to breakdown the causes of bankruptcy in any way.

The latest study from the American Journal of Medicine on this topic, at least attempts to do all of those things.

He also probably isn't too eager to say that his desired system will be shutting off the tap of so-called 'free medical care' to millions on a regular basis based on economics. He also didn't seem to eager to quote the words of his own fellow democrats who say that grandma better get ready to "take the pain pill" and "we're going to let you die".

Liar liar, pants on fire. That's not what was said, dingus.

If you don't work, have no income, and have medical issues then you are 'medically bankrupt' even in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Zero - what a dingus. And some of you think this guy is smart?

Ahh, I see. So you make up your own standard of "medical bankruptcy" that doesn't match that of any reasonable person, and declare Franken a moron or liar.

"Medical bankruptcy" is shorthand for "bankruptcy caused by medical costs." There's a huge amount of wiggle room about how much medical cost means that it "caused" the bankruptcy, but it's pretty straightforward to say that if no one pays out of pocket for medical treatment, it won't make them go bankrupt.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

Unfortunately, we're not even talking about setting up some sort of universal, no out of pocket system for the US. What we're talking about mostly is mandated insurance, which should make it easier for families to budget their health care costs. Most of why they cause bankruptcy here is that no one plans to have major medical problems, nor do they plan on having their coverage rescinded by their insurance company, nor do they plan on getting laid off and losing their benefits.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vaughan, srv, acoustic, blues, music' to 'vaughan, srv, acoustic, blues, music, pride and joy' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'live, 1987, blues session, bb king, srv, hobo steez, paul butterfield' to 'live, 1987, epic blues session, bb king, srv, hobo steez, paul butterfield' - edited by EndAll