I hadn't run into it until today and clearly failed to sift it first, so I'll *promote this unfortunately-still-relevant bit of art.

*promote because it's still relevant.

This video is still relevant.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6273027/F-16-fighter-jet-EXPLODES-damaged-Belgium-mechanic-accidentally-opened-fire.html

Librarians still make serious money in these days. The degree is still relevant and candidates are in demand.

Still relevant and awesome as all hell.

The question of obstruction was taken out of his hands by Trump, it's improper for him to give his, now, uninformed opinion which might contradict the continuing investigation.

Improper maybe but still relevant.

All those emails on an illegal server that went missing and he gave her a pass?

The investigation of Clinton was completed by the guy in question and whose alliances are questionable to say the least.

I'm not a Trump fan nor a fan of giving "any" crooks a pass.

i very well may have confused 'Jazz' with 'Kim' (see http://videosift.com/video/Kim-Youngest-Person-To-Have-Gender-Reassignment-Surgery)

is it still relevant to the thread? absolutely. Even if it deviates somewhat from the OP? for fuck sake yes. Did you bother to read the whole discussion? not likely..

Thre real question is: Why is MTV still relevant?

Every presidential candidate bullshits. I don't have a problem with that. It comes with the job. Americans can't understand simple truth, and most don't want to hear it anyway. Until that changes, being a bullshitter comes part and parcel with the job of an elected official.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^shagen454:
The important point is still relevant: Mitt Romney is a semantic liar. But, what - do we expect American politicians to not actually lie to our face and not get angry / and put on a huge dramatic show when it is pointed out?

Semantic liar or fundamental bullshitter? I find him to be worse than a liar and I have something that you might be interested in reading. It's from Harry G. Frankfurt from his essay "On Bullshit".
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off; he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.


Yeah, there are enough nuts out there like you to sway gun sales figures for fear that Obama or some other Democrat is gonna take yer guns! Meanwhile, Obama's most significant legislation pertaining to gun control is ALLOWING people to take guns into national parks. While bullshitting is an unfortunately necessary part of life, it actually has to be believable.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's a reason gun sales soared last xmas. Stay tuned...

Pretty much sums up my ex-girlfriend too.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^shagen454:
The important point is still relevant: Mitt Romney is a semantic liar. But, what - do we expect American politicians to not actually lie to our face and not get angry / and put on a huge dramatic show when it is pointed out?

Semantic liar or fundamental bullshitter? I find him to be worse than a liar and I have something that you might be interested in reading. It's from Harry G. Frankfurt from his essay "On Bullshit".
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off; he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

>> ^shagen454:

The important point is still relevant: Mitt Romney is a semantic liar. But, what - do we expect American politicians to not actually lie to our face and not get angry / and put on a huge dramatic show when it is pointed out?


Semantic liar or fundamental bullshitter? I find him to be worse than a liar and I have something that you might be interested in reading. It's from Harry G. Frankfurt from his essay "On Bullshit".

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off; he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

The important point is still relevant: Mitt Romney is a semantic liar. But, what - do we expect American politicians to not actually lie to our face and not get angry / and put on a huge dramatic show when it is pointed out?

Thank you! This is one of my best posts to the sift imo.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote

Not exactly the same circumstance, but still relevent.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"The first planker in Australia to die from the high-risk activity".
Does that sentence piss anyone else off?


All I heard was "a dingo ate my baby"

yes that joke is still relevant to me