Oh come on, the Gary Jules version is at least sincere. The 80's new wave people were always too emotionally disconnected for my taste but the more popular, toned down take by Jules was quite emotionally honest.

Must be getting old. I am completely disconnected with today's music styles. Now it has spread to comedy.

Remarkably little. Disconnected scenes showing off the cast more than anything. Main plot laid out, but nothing I'd consider a spoiler. I guess I'm saying you haven't missed anything by not watching it.

Wow. The complete disconnect from the obvious, actually stated consequences of their own actions is staggering.
I think not EVER saying his name, or investigating his 'reason' is the ONLY way to report these crimes now. As he said, otherwise you are giving them fame and a platform as a reward for their murders....and the more one kills the more air time they receive. That's asinine.

Actually, the (wikipedia) link in my first comment says that the phrase "call a spade a spade" was created from a (mis)translation of ancient Greek. The original Greek apparently said "calling a fig a fig, and a trough a trough", but the trough became a spade (shovel) and the fig got dropped.

The word "spade" by itself being used as a slur probably does come from playing cards ("black as the ace of spades"). Wikipedia says that (racist) definition was first included in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1928.

I guess that "call a spade a spade" fell out of popularity a bit because people were concerned that it might be assumed that the use of "spade" was meant in a racist way, even though it wasn't originally. But now I think maybe most people don't know the usage of "spade" as a slur, so the other phrase is becoming more acceptable again? I had never heard "spade" used as a slur before talking to a friend from the UK.


...And even though I'm OK with "call a spade a spade", or even a lot of the more blatant pushing the limits that comedians like Seinfeld, Chris Rock, etc. do, I do think that there is a point where you have to realize you're just asking for trouble. I remember a while back, some politician got into hot water for (technically correctly) using the word "niggardly" to mean "stingy" or "cheap". That *is* correct usage, and the origin is entirely disconnected from the similar-sounding slur.

BUT, you pretty much *have* to expect that people are going to jump to the other conclusion, so I think it is reasonable/best for people under public scrutiny (politicians, etc.) to avoid the word. On the other hand, if Seinfeld or Chris Rock wanted to work that into a bit that exposed our ignorance of the correct/original definition for comedic effect, I think that would be a good thing. And potentially funny.

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't you say to 'walk a mile in their shoes', or are you another bobknight33? I guess (as usual) your argument is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and displays a complete disconnect from reality as you twist your own argument to escape your own argument.
Your last sentence proves you have gone completely insane and have absolutely zero grasp on reality. For that reason....ignore. It's the only reasonable course of action with you.

A troll is someone who just says something to inflame.

If you can give a reason why you do not agree with someone, then you can't be labeled a troll.

I'd had to agree with Bob, however, that the DOJ is there to push the radical agenda of Obama.

Of course, a lot of the employees of the DOJ, such as FBI agents, are law enforcement types who didn't have the advantage of communist mentors like Obama had (Frank Marshall Davis)..they didn't grow up in Indonesia, worshipping monkey gods and such, so there is a disconnect.
They probably didn't have commie parents like Obama, but now Obama is the boss so they have to give him their due.
So in the case of Ferguson, Obama and holder send FBI agents to investigate, and since they have personal integrity, they do a good job and holder gets nothing.
But my point is this...Obama must have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. here he is raised to know all the faults, all the shortcomings, all the missteps that the US has taken over the years. He has had none of the patriotic, love for the US traditions, etc.
He gets elected, now he's the boss, so he's going to straighten out all the bad things the US has done in the past, he's going to strengthen her historical enemies, and weaken her historical friends, because...the past is just not fair.
Which is why Obama is closer to the muslim brotherhood than to the Lions Club. Also, I don't think he feels much closeness to his black brothers because he's only half-black, he was raised in a privileged white neighborhood, went to Yale, etc. His black criticizers are right...he's not down for the struggle. It never was a struggle for him.

After reading a bit more, it's clear what is going on. This is a striker fire mechanism; the firing pin is not driven by a hammer, but by a spring, in-line with the cartridge. This mechanism is used in many weapons, but it does have a couple possible failure points.

If the spring is missing or is the incorrect tension, the striker may ride forward into the breech where the cartridge is at and when a round is loaded, may cause a slam-fire. This is mostly seen in semi-auto rifles or military ones.

The second failure point, and the one that seems to be the most likely here, is a faulty trigger disconnect. This feature is supposed to disconnect the trigger action from the striker assembly to prevent this exact thing from happening. I would gather that it's not working correctly.

Funny side note, up to 1975 some Winchester pump shotguns were designed this way on purpose. Called Trench or Riot guns, they were intended to be used this way to clear areas of hostiles rapidly by simply holding the trigger down and pumping the action as fast as possible. In fact, the model 1897 Trench gun was so feared by the German soldiers in WW1 that Germany threatened severe punishments to any American soldier captured with a shotgun.

As I see it, the intent was obviously NOT to just injure him, it was to kill him with the vehicle. No question in my mind.
From the first cop's perspective, the action is NOT reasonable in the least...just listen to him on the radio, flabbergasted and disgusted at the second cop's actions.
This was FAR from a "safe resolution", it's only by chance that the man wasn't caught between the car and the cement wall it crashed all the way through....and crushing him to death certainly seemed to be the intent.
EDIT: If a citizen rolled his car towards a cop at 1/20 the speed seen here, he would almost certainly be shot and charged with attempted vehicular homicide...we've actually seen exactly that happen in other videos just because the brake lights went off, and the cops were "justified" in that case.

Anyone else find it odd that those who constantly rail against the overreaching powers of government are the same one's who consistently defend overtly violent cops as if they aren't the governmental enforcers? Can you say "disconnect"?

You rely on the government for national defense, you idiot. You know why? Because in the real world you can't defend yourself from foreign armies and terrorists. You depend upon the police for protection no matter how many guns you might have.

Where the disconnect here is the idiotic notion that we don't need government for things like health care regulation. The reality is ACA didn't just come out of the blue. It came from an obvious systemic problem within the overwhelmingly market controlled system.

You can keep mindlessly babbling all you want that government intervention is always bad, but that is turning an idiotically blind eye to basic US history, where there are ridiculous number of examples the government getting involved to effectively regulate industries are undeniably good, like the Meat Inspection Act, Food and Drug Administration, making it illegal to put lead in paint, regulations for car safety, regulations on buildings so you can't for example put asbestos in the walls, requiring labels on food so you know what ingredients are in them, so you could avoid nuts if you have a deadly nut allergy.

You know why? Because, despite your delusions, you can't inspect all your food, wear a mask when you walk into every building you go into to protect from asbestos, know that the tires you are buying don't have an excessively high chance of blowing off your car and killing you, ensure the air you breathe doesn't have too much lead in it, etc. etc. etc.

You're dependent on the government for all that, and it has massively improved your quality of life, and it has nothing to do with your self pride or dignity, so cut the utter bullcrap.

I'm not making up the definition, I'm stating my simplified interpretation of it, which by the way, doesn't counter anything you said.

You seem to think for other "universes" to exist, ours must have some physical boundary at the edge that we can observe. And crossing that would be the only way to get into another universe?

I'm simply saying that a place with a totally different set of physical laws, whether that resides in our universe, or we reside in it, can exist. We aren't able to rule that out.

There is also the possibility that another universe with the same physical laws can exist, but again, impossible to get to or observe.

Let's say I have a computer simulation of a world with no boundaries and AI lives in it. Wouldn't I then be able to duplicate that program, and run it on another disconnected computer? How would these two AI's interact with each other? Know about each other? Even if they are exact copies of each other? Yet inside their world, they have no detectable boundaries.

Let's say they figured out there was another "copy", it wouldn't ruin the physics of their world at all. It would just have to introduce to them the concept that something OUTSIDE their universe exists.

And the right are blind to it.

Therefore disconnect yourself from the struggle between the labels left or right and take this external position with me, where we try and weigh out what the best option might be for everyone, given all of the arguments. What a wonderful world it could be!

To you, politics is fighting enemies. To me, politics is helping friends. Perhaps the problem with the world is that there's too many people like you. Takes a whole bunch of understanding between different opinions in order to make a world where people with a billion different perspectives can all get along.

When you're done squibbling about labels, there's work to be done. Some people are casually racist, and some people are not. What rules can we set so that we restrict the effects of racism without restricting fairness? I also don't like some of the ways it's been implemented, perhaps we can find a way that works together?!

Or we can throw labels back and forth for a while. I have a bet on about what your answer will be.. disappoint me.

There are two parts to the trap, the trigger and the ordinance. He was exposing the ordinance part and disconnecting it while staying well away from the trigger. The second part, once the device was defused, was digging up the trigger mechanism.

Had he attempted to do that part first the video would have been rather different.

In the second world war bomb designers set traps for the defuser, but these devices seem rather simpler, they're often made out of home appliances or repurposed shells rather than being purpose built.

^ Agreed. On the one hand, the candidates need a big-picture individualism, stoicism, and acceptance that they're leaving all the people they love behind -- they need the ability to "disconnect" from that human companionship-- yet they also have to somehow get along with 3 strangers. To say nothing of the ability to not totally flip out when a chestburster pops out of one of them during dinner.

The public would think "Man that chick is desperate." But yeah, assaults on males from females are still very socially acceptable.

Anyhow, LMFAHS.

I'm always so surprised by people who are so disconnected from the person they'd consider their spouse that they really don't know it could go so badly.

Note to kiddies: If a girl starts telling you NO before you even ask the question, you should either A) stop or B) pretend to faint or C) say "Haha! Just kidding! I almost got you!"