Sad, but at the end of the day what do you expect Israel to do. Hamas fires puny little rockets at Israel because they need a state of conflict in order to get into power. Israel has no option, like any country, but to react to the shelling of any of its towns.

Exactly what kind of argument is telling your electorate that you are not using your military might because 'only a few of our civilians have died when they constantly attack our towns, but were not going to try to take them out because we might hurt their civilians'.

At the end of the day, its simple - Hamas stop firing rockets and none of this would have had to happen. But Hamas are more interested in staying in power by creating tension with Israel than having a peaceful situation where Fatah would propser.

So much for free speech and freedom of religion...

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion. The government did not outlaw the billboard or force them to take it down. The company that put it up decided to take it down, just like some billboard companies decided not to display other atheist billboards.

I personally don't have a problem with the billboard, nor do I have a problem with the religious billboards. As long as neither are hateful or attacking, they're just offering a point of view. I really don't see how the billboard was hurting anything. If the government put the billboard up then that would be a different issue.

In the end it was a business decision, not a freedom issue. The company thought it might hurt their business so they took it down. The "First Amendment R.I.P." is completely off-base since this does not involve the government in any way (from what I can tell at least).

Yeah, seriously.
#1: It doesn't take 300 (or whatever he said) men to pull a carriage that one horse can pull.
#2: If you're going to claim that you have the ability to lift trucks, you had better show some fucking evidence and not just say "I can't because I might hurt someone." That's like saying "Oh, I know kung-fu, but I just can't do it in these pants."

And besides, he said they tested his horsepower by taking samples of spinal fluid. How the fuck would that demonstrate how much power you're able to put out?

>> ^nibiyabi:
>> ^lavoll:
where do you work?
and sexmachine is an excellentname for a computer

I work at a Catholic university in California. Yeah, yeah, I know, but trust me; this stuff is pretty universal in the American workplace. It's a combination of our prudishness and our litigiousness.


Hee hee, reminds me of a high school prank someone had - they set up a nudie screensaver on the high school librarian's computer. Of course the librarians were nuns, so that went over well.

Everyone had a good laugh about it, actually.

NSFW is used "liberally" (or, if you will, in a "conservative" mindset manner) as a "lowest common denominator". As discussed by the other posters and in earlier sift-talks.

The main function of NSFW is to:
1. warn you when you might get random swearing / sexy talk in a video, especially if you're not expecting it, and you
a. are in a 'work'-like place, or
b. have younger kids around who you want to hold off on teaching profuse swearing to until they've reached their fourth birthday.
2. deal with the adult ninnies whose freakin' ears might hurt.

Embrace the tag as a mark of your 'edginess' (real or imagined) and sift on.

One more step by VS towards Digg.com

I can't believe you guys capitulated to this terrible idea.

Comment ignoring, blocking and so on is the worst idea to hit the internet Web 2.0 ever, the great thing about the internet is that you get exposed to alternative viewpoints. As I said in a blog:

"Whitewashing reality is only building yourself up to the disappointment that is the nature of how people are and how they react each other.

The internet is far more real in peoples reaction because there is no social framework keeping them from expressing themselves completely."

You think comment blocking is going to make this stop? It's only going to increase. You people fail to see the massive power that simple shunning will do.

Why I should just start banning people who might hurt people's feelings how about I ban QM, BillOReilly, CaptainPlanet420? Ohh and Blankfist because am so sick and tired of circle jerks and ass gravy mentions...

Slippery slope. We are gonna start banning people next.

I want to upvote this, but the title needs to include something indicating the likelihood that this is a fake.

For one, the guy says "we don't want it getting out, because it might hurt him", and yet he's holding a videotaped, professionally staged interview.

It'd be newsworthy if they endorsed Obama.

Hmmm. Go back and look at the "floating knife" again. Without a doubt, it does belong to Peter. However, there is clearly some symbolic reason it was painted this way. I doubt a talented and intelligent man as Davinci made this oversight: Look at the way he is holding it. This is clearly an unnatural position. Try to hold something (i would say a knife, but some people might hurt them selves and blame me... EIA in the making) the way Peter is holding that knife. Most uncomfortable.

uh... yeah, protect your ears because it might hurt.