Can you now comprehend the fact that you live in an echo chamber, so you only hear other MAGA Cons and convince yourself that, because the majority of people you talk to support Trump insanity, the majority of Americans do…but in fact your tight little group are the only ones left believing the lies but few outside the cult will stoop to talk to you anymore (it not a pleasant experience) so you rarely hear contradiction (except from me, I still tell you the truth despite your constant denials of it, you’re welcome).

Can you comprehend now that Americans aren’t buying what the Cons and Chump are selling….(loss of freedoms, loss of bodily autonomy, loss of social security and Medicare, an end to investments in America or Americans, loss of direction, and a likely loss of democracy)…and that was reflected in the vote? A vote that all precedent showed would be heavily red but was not because Trump’s candidates were horrific and insulting….Hershel Walker!?! WTF, man. Even you must see he’s just unacceptable….he’s literally criminally insane (diagnosed with multiple personalities and other impairments, and repeatedly tried to murder people including his own family) and has lost contact with reality.

"Everyone involved sustained non-life threatening injuries as a result of the crash, according to troopers.

The driver of the passenger vehicle showed suspected signs of impairment and is currently being processed for driving while impaired."

https://www.fox9.com/news/watch-video-box-truck-explosion-on-minnesota-highway

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

what's with the subtitles.. he's speaking English.. the subtitles are English. Is that for the hearing impaired? isn't that what the CC option is for?

Bob, when your candidate of choice is bragging about managing to pass a cognitive impairment test, I think it's well past the time to re-think your support of that candidate.

Hearing impaired love that deep bass. TURN THAT SHIT UP!!

This was a part that was often left out in discussions by prolegalization groups when pushing for changes in laws. While the potential harms are significantly less, I agree with the video of not dismissing that there are harms.

One part that I often have an issue with is the studies relating driving impairment with cannabis use. Well, some are well designed, controlled studies that ensure that cannabis is the only drug involved. Some studies are only looking back at police enforcement numbers for accidents. Often those reports will not break down the difference between cannabis only or the person having multiple drugs in their system at the time. In addition, the fact that the tests for cannabis will come out positive for weeks after use further complicates the issue. I'm not making an argument for driving impaired while on cannabis, just noting some things that many of the conclusions on studies often leave out.

No...he admitted to drinking at the dinner he was coming from, a legal reason to field test by itself. There's no question they can field test you for any suspicion, even no reason at all, and fail you for any tiny missteps they determine indicate impairment, then verify with a breathalyzer. Failure to submit to that impartial test is considered admission of guilt in most places.
He was let off most likely because he denied 'refusing' the test and they couldn't prove otherwise without recordings is my guess.

Why not intentionally waste their time and annoy them? Because defending yourself against charges that could be easily avoided is a pain, as he describes. The officers involved won't care if the charges stick, their point is made, they'll show you who can waste who's time and money more effectively, with little fear of consequences.
Edit: there's also the possibility that the police didn't show at the final trial appearance, which could also end up causing a dismissal of the case.

When you're illegally parked/stopped on a freeway shoulder you should expect to be looked at with suspicion, imo.

@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

Congratulations! Your video, Mother gives hearing impaired daughter the good news, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 7 Badge!

"disabled" is probably not the right word..."hearing impaired" is more accurate..

Smoking on a plane in 2017?!? So she's clearly mentally impaired in some way.
This will not go well for her. She will never fly a commercial airline in America again.
I wonder what the air marshal (I'm assuming that's the man seen at the end) did to her, surely at least handcuffs if not a full hog tie.

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

My thought was it was for people with impaired vision.

In my eyes, that's fraud at best, and since sex can't be sold, she would have no recoverable loss.
That goes for your examples until impairment comes in. I disagree, but I think the law says if you sleep with someone who's drunk or high, that's rape, even if they were ok with it at the time.

Mentioning she enjoyed it wasn't meant as a defense to rape, but an indication that he was not an asshole to her on the date.

No, if you intentionally murder me, your intent is to victimize me, your goal might not be.

Yes, schadenfreude is not becoming, but we all engage in it. I can't blame him for being gleeful his plan had so overachieved his goal, but the djs, yeah.

All that said, I'm pretty sure this is all scripted...it was just too perfect.