Qi am looking for a job.

Qi want to figure this out..my friend said that it is such a funny episode..where the contruction workers bust out into a song and dance.. like YMCA or something..so please help??

QWhen Homer and Bart were walking Mr. Burns through the construction site. Trying to figure out where that familiar music is from?

QThe bart that runs under the bay into San Francisco? How long did it take to construct? When did construction begin? Has any earthquake ever effected the tube under the bay for BART rail? I am just curious because I think the engineering is amazing!

QSee the bill here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-40Summary: Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty.Sponsor: Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]Cosponsors [as of 2008-07-05]Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN]Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT]Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]Rep. Nancy Boyda [D-KS]Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]Rep. David Davis [R-TN]Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]Rep. Lincoln Davis [D-TN]Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]Rep. Terry Everett [R-AL]Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ]Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]Rep. Samuel Graves [R-MO]Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV]Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH]Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH]Rep. Frank Lucas [R-OK]Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]Rep. James Marshall [D-GA]Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA]Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]Rep. Jerry Moran [R-KS]Rep. Tim Murphy [R-PA]Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA]Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]Rep. John Peterson [R-PA]Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]Rep. Ralph Regula [R-OH]Rep. Bill Sali [R-ID]Rep. James Saxton [R-NJ]Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC]Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI]Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R-OH]Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA]Is your congressman standing up for American sovereinty by publicly supporting HCR40?if not, or if unknown, when will you write your letter?Bob0With an answer like that, either you stand for dismantling American sovereignty, or you are sadly uninformed. There are Americans who support one-world communist government. If you are one of them, feel free to say so. There is another user here at Yahoo with the courage to say so. Most of the traitors are too cowardly to admit they are traitors. Which camp do you fall in - the uninformed, or the traitors?That last comment was addressed to Bob, not Bob0. My mistake (or perhaps it was a Freudian slip to ad the zero - I may been thinking about the answer points).

QWhen you go to the url it just shows a picture of Bart Simpson writing on a chalk board and a message that says still under construction since 1994 it has been the same for years. Does anyone know the story behind this or what they have benn constructing for almost 20 years. I have literally wondered for years about this. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all.

QClyde enters Desert Decathlon, an athletic competition in which Clyde has often competed. Regarding the risk of injury, Clyde assumes the risks a. greater than the risks normally associated with the Decathlon. 0% b. attributable to the Decathlon in any way. c. different from the risks normally associated with the Decathlon. d. normally associated with the Decathlon. eve and Frank enter an express contract for the construction of a warehouse. Express contract terms are given a less priority than the parties' course of performance. 0% b. less priority than the trade usage in that particular industry. c. more priority than the prior dealing, course of performance, and trade usage. d. less priority than the parties' prior dealing. Driving his sport utility vehicle negligently, Bart crashes into a streetlight. The streetlight falls, smashing through the roof of a house, killing Chris. But for Bart's negligence, Chris would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is the a cause in fact. b intervening cause. c superseding cause. d proximate cause.

QWhich one is the most meaningful?Sometimes the hardest thing you could do is also what is right.Memory is the greatest trick we play on ourselves, after reality...At the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, not winning one more verdict, or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a friend, a child, or a parent.Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could; some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.I believe that imagination is stronger than knowledge -- myth is more potent than history -- dreams are more powerful than facts -- hope always triumphs over experience -- laughter is the cure for grief -- love is stronger than death.I postpone death by living, by suffering, by error, by risking, by giving, by losing.If you want to know the past, to know what has caused you, look at yourself in the PRESENT, for that is the past's effect. If you want to know your future, then look at yourself in the PRESENT, for that is the cause of the future.Mistakes are part of the dues that one pays for a full life.Never give up on something that you can't go a day without thinking about. When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and arguments. That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding.Your children are not your children.They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.They come through you but not from you,and though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.You may give them your love, but not your thoughts.For they have their own thoughts.You may house their bodies but not their souls,for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.For life goes not backward, nor tarries with yesterday.Friends are FOREVER!!!!Which one is the funniest?Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway. There are no stupid questions, just stupid people. When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car. LOL! JK!You laugh because I'm different...........I laugh cause I just farted! Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? Now a true fact........Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid. He who laughs last didn't get it. Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the world together.There are three sides of an arguement -- your side, my side and the right side. The road to success is always under construction. Whatever it is -- I didn't do it! You know the speed of light;so what is the speed of dark? If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun.Ok now for my fav one that Homer Simson said to Bart...Son, if you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers.

QThis case was decided in part by SC Nominee Sonia Sotomayor:"Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board. "But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone. "The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site. "Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain."(Source: http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2007/01/give_me_money_o.html)Here is a case of one private citizen extorting money ($800,000) from another private citizen. What makes this case so egregious is that, in this case, the extortionist threatened to use the government as a weapon against his victim.What makes it even more egregious is that the Court could find no remedy for the victim under the 5th Amendment Takings Clause or the 14th Amendment. Here a quote from the Appeals Court ruling, which was co-authored by Sonia Sotomayor:"...the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted. (“Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project.”)....Finally, we agree with the district court that Appellees' voluntary attempts to resolve Appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."(Source: Didden v. Village of Port Chester, 173 Fed.Appx. 93, C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2006.)"Appellants' demands" were nothing more than a request to build on their own property. Appellee's "voluntary attempts to resolve Appellants' demands" were nothing short of an attempt at extorting $800,000 from the rightful property owner. If the City government participates in this extortion, how can it NOT be an unconstitutional exaction?This case is a bad follow-up to a bad precedent (Kelo v. City of New London, cited above). And our Supreme Court nominee refuses to acknowledge extortion when she sees it. As much as she is to be admired for her personal history and achievements, can we afford to have another SC justice on the bench who is indifferent to the 5th Amendment?Moose, once again you've managed to ignore the question and respond with a non-sequiter. Once again, you've managed to pad your numbers without contributing a thing to the topic at hand. Thanks again for nothing.Miss Daisy, I agree with you in part, but I think it's more complicated than just "liberal vs. conservative." After all, in the aftermath of the Kelo case, people from both the left and the right were justifiably outraged.Pliny the Elder, thanks. Would love to know more about what your thoughts are on this.Brooooooklyn, you may be right. She may have felt her hands were tied by the Kelo case. After all, she does say in their opinion that "Kelo v. City of New London obliges us to conclude...." But somehow I doubt that she would do anything to reverse Kelo's effects as a Supreme Court justice. We'll just have to wait and see.Thanks for the links.Nokilleye, where to begin? First of all, it’s obvious you didn’t read the entire question. Otherwise, you would have known that this is NOT about CVS vs. Walgreens. There was no implication that either was a “victim” in this case. This is about property owners, and the fact that the government can just take your property from you at will, regardless of motive. This is about the fact that a portion of the Bill of Rights (the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment) was written specifically to prevent this type of injustice, but the Supreme Court has refused to address takings when they see them. This is about the fact that the poor are just as likely to be victimized as the rich (perhaps even more so).So keep your hysterical laughter to yourself next time. Don’t bother to answer a question if you can’t bother to read it.