Lemme guess... they fuel the planes that bring the athletes to Greece?
Lemme guess... they fuel the planes that bring the athletes to Greece?
Neg: I can fully understand how someone who's first language isn't English may be confused by this "legalese". Allow me to assist you here..... ;)Quote:
the corporation (read: the USOC) shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.
The sentence really says two things:-
1. The corporation shall be non-political, and
2. The corporation may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.
Now, you will note that in both "parts" of the sentence the subject is "the corporation" which you rightly allude to being the USOC.
So you see Bush's ad does not contravene section 220506 of the act because Bush is not "the corporation" and nowhere in the ad does it state that the ad carries the "ok" of the corporation. In fact, the two are totally separate entities with "the corporation" never having any hand, say or giving a "nod" to the makers or benefactors of the ad.....
Case closed.....
By the way.... Would anyone like to research to see how the ungrateful little shiites, (pun intended), got from Iraq to Athens and who picked up the tab...... That alone should at least have them be a little polite with their whining...... :rolleyes:
You don't have to hold my hand, Tiger... what you just "tought" me is exactly what I said.
clearly indicating that my issue is about what a judge would think about a political party dragging the USOC into politics rather than the USOC itself being involved in politics. I thought I was clear enough without stressing the being drug into part.Quote:
Chapter 220507 states that the corporation (read: the USOC) shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office. Again: I wonder what a judge thinks about being drug into politics...
It's "whose", btw... not "who's" :p
It's dragged not drug!!!! :p
Bloody foreigners.... ;)
Methinks the Media dragged the USOC into politics..... But that's the cynic in me speaking....
dragged... not drug... okies... it'd be cooler if it were drug... "the drugs drug him to the street"... blah.
So I guess that the 568 buisnesses in Liberal California, with "Olympic" in their names have to be condemned and can no longer advertise. Unitl they change their name of course.
http://yellowpages.superpages.com/li...Search=Find+It
If they'd want to make a point out of it: I guess so, yups... unless they're older than 54 years or are referring to the mountain with the same name :)
What is really interesting? The next summer Olympics (this word used without consent of the USOC and Athletes from Iraq. It is used in a context to define the time and place when all countries get together and compete. And that time is indeed called the Olympics. If you are offended by this word and the usage contained in this paragraph, please call 1 800 NEW SPEAK ) is in Bejing China. In that context imagine an olympic ad detailing more "democratic" countries when the host nation itself is not. Talk about a pun. :)
Haven't had time to read all six pages of this, but someone has to bring this up:
Translation: I would resist the invading American pig-dogs, but I'm too busy playing soccer.Quote:
In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.
Glad the ungrateful little dweeb has his priorities straight. :D
also something else that strikes me as odd in the add..
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120"
I do know the commercial doesn't say so.. but the wording makes it sound like Iraq and Afganistan are now democracies . . . .
Where's the chosen government in either country ??