I'm not advocating he should have caved in to Depp in the slightest. There's a difference between taking a stand that's reasonable and acting like "a complete wanker".

The quarantine requirements make complete sense. Most voters accept the fact that some laws are annoying but necessary. But he's not helping by acting like he did. At least show you'd feel bad if you had to kill his dogs instead of saying the equivalent to the dogs should fuck off. I'd completely understand if Depp came in with illegal items that if destroyed didn't hurt anyone but Depp, so yeah, outrage and some good old fashioned dickish behavior at a hollywood star acting entitled would be pretty awesome. The problem is he's acting like this about killing innocent dogs.

The issue with his behavior isn't that he took a principled stand. It's that he acted like a complete douche, which makes people turn against doing the right thing when it's completely unnecessary.

Dude, did you watch the video?

"*He's not wrong to be angry*, but the problem is he began to lose the moral high ground."

He even explained why you can't just smuggle your pets in.

He was pretty clear Depp shouldn't have done what he did. He was just making fun of someone handling the other side in what can only be described as a politically piss poor way.

If you want to get harsh public opposition for doing the right thing, the list for ways to do that would have to include killing defenseless puppies who did nothing wrong (in this case their owner did), saying publicly the puppies in what would be our equivalent in the US should "fuck off", personally attack an interviewer who was confronting him about how much of a douche he was being, and thin glibly celebrating his win on twitter like a complete prick.

If he was trying to piss off as many people as possible for doing the right thing, he should have just asked, "WWHD - What would Hitler do?"

With all that said, this wasn't Oliver's "serious" part of the show. This was for entertainment purposes mainly, you glassy eyed muppet donkey!

He could have backed away, or closed his door. Is that so hard?
The title said "shuffling in his direction", it did not portray him as a person randomly shuffling around shot for no reason.
You said it in the next sentence...the officer ALLOWED him to get too close, he had options to not let that happen that don't include homicide. That's the point I, and the Mexican government, wish to make clearly. There WERE other, non deadly options that keep the officer safe, they simply didn't try any of them and went with deadly force as a first option when verbal commands didn't work.

Stabbed or shot him with WHAT? His hands were empty, and in fact he was totally unarmed, and too drunk to win a fist fight.

Yes, moving towards the officer can be seen as threatening, but a threat that is easily avoided without using firearms in numerous ways, like walking back or closing his door, either of which would keep him 'safe'.

HOLY SHIT!!! Now just putting your hands down is a shooting offence! I'll simply disagree on that, and hope I'm not alone.

I'm flabbergasted that the officer is being seen as doing the right thing by people here for shooting instead of retreating to a safe distance, people who's opinion I value, no less, not just our local cop excuser. I watched again to see if I see what you guys do, and I just can't see it. I must admit, it seems I'm a minority in that...at least in this country.

I guess people better do exactly as the officer says, and if you have two officers telling you to do opposing things, (for example- "FREEZE" AND "GET ON THE GROUND"....which do you do?) well, you're hosed, because one of them can shoot you for not obeying, making you 'threatening'.
Oh.

Yes, they always do the right thing.

Same thing to me.
Constitution based republic...according to Bob's definition that's a bit redundant.
Strong democratic tradition/tendencies = representative democracy (in my eyes). Not a true democracy, because the founding fathers did not trust the masses to get it right every time because masses are reactionary, but did trust those educated gentlemen they elected to do the right thing (a mistake, but understandable considering the morals of the time).
I did ignore the 'federal' part, but I thought it didn't need saying, since we were only talking about the federal government. Of course, our government is a confederation/federation of the states. An important part of that is the agreement by all that that rules of the federation always override the rules of the constituent parts.

Sure thing...I learned some new things from that book. For instance, Franklin was often carried in by prisoners (on a kind of early work release program) in a 'sedan chair'. Not the picture I have in my mind of him.

Yes, the Retardicans were spouting so many lies about it that this turned out to be true, you had no chance of telling what was actually IN the bill (without reading it) until those liars were 'silenced' by it passing...but it didn't happen that way...they never stopped the lies, just started shouting new ones louder.
That had NOTHING to do with it passing, it was about public opinion, which had been swayed by lies, mostly republican lies.

EDIT: I have a solution to this that satisfies everyone...the Republicans just need to pass Single Payer health care to replace ACA, then they can get rid of "Obamacare", save face, AND do the right thing at the same time. Won't happen, but it could solve all the political BS and get us a health care system that works for all.

-cue downvote

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

We have boots on the ground in Waziristan, pakistan and Yemen?

What diff does it make to you if it's a missile off an unmanned aircraft or a missile off a manned aircraft?

Drones are looking where there are no other assets. They see a guy planting an IED, they can take care of it right then. But I would imagine the process involves intelligence-gathering, a target, then a trip to the WH to get approval.

I don't believe Obama is just sticking a pin in a map, unless it involves golf courses he hasn't yet played.

Now, if you want to say you don't trust Obama to do the right thing...that we can agree on.

I see cops who are tasked with upholding the law and trained and paid well to do so, being abusive criminal bullies and douchebags with authority and 'immunity', and others ignoring that duty to support/shield fellow officers in that criminal activity, time and time again. Because nearly 100% of police act that way, as accessories after the fact at best if not actual accessories and in direct opposition to their duties to protect the public, yes, I think they are nearly all 'evil' and criminal. There is the rare exception of the officer that sacrifices his/her own career to do the right thing and report other officers, but they don't stay cops after 'snitching'.
Wow, so you think cops are a separate 'race'? Talk about a lack of critical thinking ability! Similarly trained 'professionals' that separate themselves from society and have their own separate homogenous 'culture' are far more homogenous than any 'race' of people. Your insinuation to the contrary only paints you in an extremely bad light, only one kind of person thinks entire races are homogenous.
A better analogy would have been 'Have you ever seen gang members committing crimes and drawn the conclusion that all gang members are evil?' I would answer that 'no, but I do think they're all criminal.' Gang members don't have a duty to uphold the law that they are shirking, so MIGHT not be 'evil' in their criminality.
Absolutely, I got an A in critical thinking, thanks for asking. Have you ever studied the subject?

I find this to be the most difficult subject to tackle when it comes to breaking through the bullshit. No matter what facts there are you're always considered wrong, and so are the Palestinians. There are so many true believers in this and misinformation out there that you can't have an argument about this subject at all it seems.

So it's very important we have clear, concise, and intelligent reporting. NBC had that, so they pulled him out. You can't ask these sorts of questions in polite company, it's not allowed. NBC show'd how subservient to power they are in such an obvious way it's laughable. People talk about Fox news all the time, and yeah they're pretty stupid at times. The entire media has a problem though, and it's plain to see anytime something like this happens.

I wait patiently and study constantly for the day when we are allowed to talk about the Israel/Palestine conflict candidly and honestly. Right now whenever a discussion happens there's no give whatsoever. Israel is right, and they're doing the right thing, not even a misstep. I think in any position over the course of history, that can't possibly be correct. No government is 100% right and just, but don't tell their supporters that.

From a former Comcast employee:

"If I was reviewing this guy's calls I'd agree that this is an example of going a little too hard at it, but here's the deal (and this is not saying they're doing the right thing, this is just how it works). First of all these guys have a low hourly rate. In the states I've worked in they start at about 10.50-12$/hr. The actual money that they make comes from their metrics for the month, which depends on the department they're in. In sales this is obvious: the more sales you make the better you do.

In retention, the more products you save per customer the better you do, and the more products you disconnect the worst you do (if a customer with a triple play disconnects, you get hit as losing every one of those lines of business, not just losing one customer). These guys fight tooth and nail to keep every customer because if they don't meet their numbers they don't get paid.

Comcast uses "gates" for their incentive pay, which means that if you fall below a certain threshold (which tend to be stretch goals in the first place) then instead of getting a reduced amount, you get 0$. Let's say that if you retain 85% of your customers or more (this means 85% of the lines of businesses that customers have when they talk to you, they still have after they talk to you), you get 100% of your payout—which might be 5-10$ per line of business. At 80% you might only get 75% of your payout, and at 75% you get nothing.

The CAEs (customer service reps) watch these numbers daily, and will fight tooth and nail to stay above the "I get nothing" number. This guy went too far; you're not supposed to flat out argue with them. But Comcast literally provides an incentive for this kind of behavior. It's the same reason people's bills are always fucked up: people stuffing them with things they don't need or in some cases don't even agree to."

http://np.reddit.com/r/television/comments/2arg1k/comcasts_customer_service_nightmare_is_painful_to/ciy33bx

If that's what he meant then that would be a better comparison (but I still think it is just not the best comparison because of what I wrote).

Unfortunately we're all arseholes one way or another.

I think that there does not even need to be a mention of adverse climate change (anthropogenic or not) for us to be doing the right thing by the current environment and our future environment.

Don't you boys worry; you're doing the right thing sitting there as it approaches. Just wait until it completely surrounds you because the eye of the tornado is peaceful and safe.

OK, if you KNOW there's no good reason for it and do it to your child anyway, that's more barbaric. If you believe, because of misinformation, it's a good thing for the child and is safe, to me it's much less barbaric. People do harmful things all the time trying to do the right thing, intent and level of understanding should be considered when judging others, that's all I'm saying.
and in your analogy, I would be semi OK with that (if there's a male equivalent so it's not just sexist mutilation) because the social issues of not being accepted are far worse than having only one nipple, totally OK with it if it's by choice at the accepted age of choice or 'adulthood' (even if the other choice is leave the tribe).

EDIT: same hypothetical, is it OK if it's explained that they have to remove the nipple because otherwise they can't use the tools available needed to hunt without constant, often deadly bloody and infected hardcore nipple chafing, and so they would either likely starve or would likely be killed at birth because the tribe couldn't support them?

I'm 100% OK with the rituals of the 'alligator people' in Africa that cut themselves to look like they have alligator skin, done in adolescence or later by choice as I understand it, and that's certainly 'barbaric' by most standards.