Another out-of-context video. Tired of the 'Karen' campaign. Without context, it's knee-jerk judgment. Already have people that making bad judgements about others without enough data.

That said...appears there was a man at the edge of the walkway - why didn't she address him? Sounded like he said...

"I'll talk to Cory. He's on the town board."

Doubt that political signage would be a violation (or enforceable) as it treads too close to the 1st amendment.

Have seen ramp walkways and handicapped ramps on homes. Those would look great with a "install your own President resistant walkway today!" sign beside them.

NOTE: don't let 🦜 bob fool you. he sent me a link to him and his band...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZPDiwwSVqg

It's interesting---against the United States Navy's 3rd Fleet, Japan's attempts to to use islands to hold a perimeter against the United States in WWII, while certainly causing the issue to be in doubt from time to time, ended up stranding and wasting more resources than not.

Not that we'd ever get to a hot war except through miscalculation and bad judgement---but defending each of those "islands" against a full strike might get tricky.

But this is the internet and I could easily be wrong.

Bad judgement on him though. Rather honk the horn than avoid a collision. Goes to attitude. You avoid the accident THEN blare the horn.

I dunno, maybe he thought it was the force-field button...

Completely shit sightlines on the approach. Wall covered the entire area to the right. You NEVER assume other drivers have any idea how to drive or what they're doing.

Drive like everyone else is texting, and you'll get in fewer accidents.

Sleepy woman, well shit happens. Yeah, she should have been more careful, but bad judgement comes with tiredness, so hard to blame her entirely.

Guy in the follow car, WTF were you thinking? You saw trouble ahead and instead of giving an extra wide follow distance, you chose to film it up close and personal. Honestly, he's the biggest idiot here.

First, regarding your statement and this video, it's not a matter of "that cop should act perfectly." It's more that the officer had no reason to handcuff a guy who is not a threat has already been searched and is sitting there doing nothing.

But in general, the bigger problem is not with this specific cop's actions; it's that this kind of behavior is indicative of a systematic problem in law enforcement and society's lack of concern for how their abuse of power is not being kept in check. It's becoming more and more acceptable for police to separate individuals from their civil rights and with less and less reason, motivation, or consequences.

The explanation is really not just that "Hey, cops are human, bro. They totally make mistakes. They can't all negotiate perfectly. They can't all have compassion. They aren't all like super-patient. They can't all only shoot guilty people." That's quite a bit of a naive opinion.

The issue is that cops are no longer just making mistakes and bad judgement calls. At least that kind of thing could be chalked up to human error or inadequate training.

They're now intentionally deciding to do things to people they know they really have no legal explanation for and that they will face no consequences for.

If you're really defending that, then what you're really saying is cops should be able to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, just because they want to, and everyone else should shut up and take it because everything any cop does is acceptable because of the very fact that they're a cop. And besides, it's not going to happen to "the vast majority of people," so who cares, right?

Bullshit. Maybe in communist Russia or China, but not in the land of the "free."

Too many assumptions in this thread.

You have no idea what was going on in the semi's cab. We only know he was drunk after the fact. Guy could have had a seizure or stroke, been fighting a hijacker, or simply had multiple, innocent people as passengers. The only reason you can condemn him for bad judgement is because you, the viewer, knew the verdict before you even clicked the link.

I was surprised that they elevated the situation to trying to shoot the tires out.

I laughed at the fact that the passenger of the cop car looks like he's playing a video-game for the first 1/3rd of the clip (probably prepping his gun).

I was tickled that Russian highway patrol has mauve-colored seats.

Anyway, I agree with force-when-necessary, and corporal punishment as a last resort, but if you don't exhaust all other options first: Fuck you, your government, and whatever laws you think support that.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Also technically in violation of the posting guidelines.


it was?
i was not the uploader,nor creator.
ah well.in any case it was bad judgement on my part.
feelin kinda stupid at the moment.......

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

My point was that there are millions of people in the US who are far, far less fortunate than you are. (You have a car to live in?! Jesus-Luxury-Christ!) It's fantastic that you worked hard for your education, obviously you are a very intelligent and right-headed individual. But downplaying the debt that so many take on for education to make it look as though it's bad judgement or individual choice, rather than situational circumstance or systematic exploitation, suggests you are out of touch with the reality of the situation.

The correct directions are still the correct directions, regardless of who gives them. The only difference is that it's coming to you in the voice of a child, who is repeating verbatim what he is being told by his parent, who is obviously close enough to make the immediate "school" comment you hear in the conversation.

Incredibly colossal, terrible, stupendous, dumbfounding, incomprehensible case of bad judgement? That doesn't strike you in any way as an over-reaction to a kid saying "Adios, Amigos" after all the correct information has been conveyed?

How do you feel about Mission Control saying, "God Speed, John Glenn" before his takeoff on something far more complicated and dangerous than an airplane? Is that OK since it's an adult saying it?

I absolutely agree.

It's not like this kid was alone and actually directing airplanes, he was saying into a microphone what a qualified air traffic controller was telling him to say.

Just like a cop letting a kid play with his car's siren or a firefighter letting a kid into the firetruck this guy was giving his kid a memory he'll likely cherish for the rest of his life. Give him a break.
>> ^jiyanibi:
Bad judgement? Maybe. But I just don't get the outrage I'm hearing from people today on this topic. In all likelihood, some air traffic controller let his kid sit on his lap and either read from a script or whispered to tell him what to say. I see no more harm done here than if the controller was speaking through a voice box to change his pitch to sound like a kid. The kid is just a vehicle for the message between the controller and the pilot. It's not like he's telling the kid how to perform brain surgery here. And, if anything, the pilots clearly displayed no outrage knowing that the parent wouldn't let the child do something if he thought there was any danger involved. Oh well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

Bad judgement? Maybe. But I just don't get the outrage I'm hearing from people today on this topic. In all likelihood, some air traffic controller let his kid sit on his lap and either read from a script or whispered to tell him what to say. I see no more harm done here than if the controller was speaking through a voice box to change his pitch to sound like a kid. The kid is just a vehicle for the message between the controller and the pilot. It's not like he's telling the kid how to perform brain surgery here. And, if anything, the pilots clearly displayed no outrage knowing that the parent wouldn't let the child do something if he thought there was any danger involved. Oh well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

What a incredibly colossal, terrible, stupendous, dumbfounding, incomprehensible case of bad judgement.

That is possible if you were allowed to pick more than one person for the survey. Bad way to display the data if that was the case though...

TheFreak: Yeah, well he SAID he believed in god now and he would go to church every sunday! Isn't that good enough for you?

Romney has some judgement problems too, he once went on a car trip with his family and there wasn't enough room for the dog inside the car, so he strapped the pet carrier to the roof, when brown streaks started appearing in the rear window he just stopped at a gas station, sprayed it off and kept going. That's part one of his bad judgement... Part two was, when asked about a time where he'd showed good judgement in the past he decided to share the above story... (I am not making this up!)

Porn and tattoos are both related to bad judgement and short-term thinking from what I've seen.