Dishonest stating it in a way that strongly implies he was kicked out for his opinion, and hides from the fact it was for speaking out repeatedly, disruptively.
That's a lie by obfuscation.

Did you even watch it?
The teacher was clear, he was kicked out for continuing to argue after being allowed to state his opinion...a right he did not have but a privilege he was granted. That is disruptive, as is requiring individual attention a second time to discuss the same thing.

He was kicked out for repeating his opinion, disrupting class and the teacher.

The issue is being disruptive in class, thinking his uninformed opinion should shout down an informed one from the teacher, an opinion held by the school board and codified in the rules of conduct.

Regardless of what the douchebag kid thinks on this matter, he has no right to disrupt the class by debating policy.
The kid is free to think, but not to disrupt class. He may express his thoughts....at home or in open public forums, not class.

If you defy school policy, expect to reap the rewards of being removed from school and all that comes with that. Duh. Challenge, sure, appropriately, in appropriate venues and times, like a school board or PTA meeting, not during class. If you wish to challenge it inappropriately and disruptively, don't think standing on the right to speak gives you immunity from other rules or repercussions. That's not how it works. It's not an absolute right....I'll prove it, go argue gender in a federal court that's in session, see how long you remain standing and unincarcerated. Better yet, go argue something not insanely pro Trump at a Trump rally, see how many teeth you have in the morning...If you see morning.

No need tell anyone about their mistakes. Mistakes correct themselves. For instance I thought loving someone was the right thing to do.

Then one day I lost someone I loved. It was the worst and most fearful point in my life. I felt that somehow I had the wrong idea about love and I was the only one who didn't get the message. The grief was terrible. Almost inescapable. I was stuck inside my own little world. If I had a gun I would have put it to my head and pulled the trigger. Luckily I had no gun but I did have a little more time to suffer over a decision.

Do I continue to love knowing the pain and nightmare of grief?

What do you think my choice was?

EDIT: Actually, you don't help by not forgiving inappropriate behavior. Forgiving is not condoning. It's really more of an exercise to keep from pulling the trigger or setting yourself on fire.

Your death has nothing to do with you and everything to do with those that love you.

I think you help people by showing them their mistakes, calmly explaining them if needed, and you help the public by exposing those who angrily deny any obligation to be responsible, civil, or accept established social obligations so others don't rely on them or trust them to do the obviously right thing/so the public has the information needed to know to distrust and shun them.

You don't help by excusing inappropriate behavior.

I think you people miss the point. She is in the wrong, disrespectful, and insulting from the get go. He's being a douche intentionally to get under the skin of people like her who believe they have no obligations to be decent human beings, people who leave their messes for others to clean up without qualms because somebody will take care of them. She was being a dumb bitch before he arrived, leaving her cart where it blocks both the parking spot and endangers the neighboring car, and could easily damage others by rolling, that's why cart return spots exist. Maybe his car has been repeatedly damaged by inappropriately abandoned carts, we don't know his motivation for demanding others not be irresponsible. He maybe should have just moved it and a few others to block her then sat back and recorded her outrage, and not engaged with the douchey nutjob....but that wouldn't have the desired effect.

Guaranteed she litters, despite her claims....she absolutely records him without permission, something she claimed was illegal when he did it. Rules don't apply to people like her. Civility isn't part of their makeup, neither is accepting social obligations...She must be a Trump supporter.

He was calm and polite at first until she went full superbitch on him immediately.

I fully support being a dick to dicks, and a douche to douches. I would have supported him knocking her phone out of her hand like she tried multiple times...turnabout is always fair play, and she was the disrespectful douchebag first and best....eventually blocking handicapped parking in her disrespectful rage after trying twice to break his camera/phone.

If you're doing something wrong that could harm others and someone calls you out, YOU are the asshole, not the upright citizen who saw something and said something. If you get outraged at being called out for ignoring your responsibility, you are the douchebag that deserves public shaming.

You think this is exceptional?

Let's create an imaginary group, we'll call them Kopz. Now, Kopz are trusted. Kopz are rarely, if ever prosecuted if they commit crimes in the line of duty. If a member of Kopz does something bad, it's his friends, other Kopz who will investigate. If he's actually caught and his fellow Kopz turn him over for prosecution, well the Kopz have a very cozy relationship with prosecutors, so he'll probably have a friend there too. Oh and Kopz are allowed to carry guns and have a monopoly on legal violence.

What kind of person do you think would want to join Kopz?

Now, let's say the people who pick who is and who isn't allowed to join the Kopz, are themselves Kopz. After several generations of inbreeding, what sort of people do you think they'll select to join their fraternity?

These guys only ever get busted when there is absolute incontrovertible video evidence, and even then the first words out of every police chief's mouth inevitably are, "Well, the video doesn't tell the WHOLE story. We need to know the context before we can decide if the behaviour was inappropriate." (guess what, he's a Kopz too!)

Bob. You're repeating nonsense. Flynn contacted the Russian government and made deals with them, on Trump's behalf and at Trump's direction, in contradiction to the current administration....Obama....which is a serious felonious crime called treason, then he lied about it repeatedly under oath. No one set up a thing besides an opportunity to come clean, which he failed to do.

Duh, Bob....every conviction of an administration member is related to Trump, if these were Obama administration officials, you would undeniably blame him for each and every charge, but Trump must not be a leader in your eyes or you would also blame him for his own people, certainly.

No, Bob, this is to ensure a dishonest president doesn't try to kill the FBI investigation or just hide it's findings, like he's tried dozens of times to do. Because your ilk refuses to follow the law or constitutional obligations, more investigation is not only proper, it's required....and from what I read it's 81.
This is about any number of new crimes divulged by Trump's personal fixer, and who would know better? It's also about his uncountable public displays of obstruction and seeing what other illegal steps he's taken to try to end the investigation before results are known.

Trump spends that much taxpayer money at his own golf clubs monthly, you don't care a whit about the money, you would jump at the opportunity to spend ten times that investigating Clinton over pedophile pizza places or any other nonsense. I'm certain you didn't complain when Republicans spent over $80 million to investigate a real estate deal and only found an inappropriate blow job....Trump wishes he had that little to investigate, we already know far more and far worse about him by his own admission.

Trump is far more than enough by himself to keep people on the anti Trump train, people like me couldn't be dragged off it with a minor temporary tax rebate....and weren't.
It would be sad, if we believed you were an American, that you were so deluded and biased that investigating clear obstruction looks like a political ploy to you, but I have a seriously hard time believing you are for real, real people can't exist so incredibly biased and blinded, you go so far overboard in your support of an admitted fraud (Trump stole money from poor people and gave them no education in return, Trump personally admitted under oath it was a pure fraud) it's simply not rational, and you don't spout off enough about lizard people to believe you believe it.

But then you say something stupid like "its going off the rails, just like the Democrat party" ignoring that the Democrats won the last election handily because Americans don't like a crazed, narcissistic, fraud president with worsening dementia or sycophantic representatives and want them investigated, the Republican party derailed in summer 16 but you won't get out of the burning wreck.

Like I said, it's the state charges that should worry you....Pence can't pardon those.

Actually, there has been a lot.
There have been over 25 convictions over inappropriate, illegal, or at best unreported ties to foreign powers in his administration...do you even understand what Flynn or Manafort did? If there was a crime of collusion, they would be convicted of it, instead they were convicted of the actual charges of criminal fraud and lying to the FBI about colluding with Russia and a little thing called subversion.

Likely what will take Trump down in the end is not the crimes he had others commit for him, but lying about them and committing crimes to hide his culpability, because he will never admit his part but will be forced to testify under oath. He's already committed witness intimidation a dozen times over in public. Remember, Nixon wasn't in trouble over the break in by others, he was in trouble over the cover-up he directed...sounds familiar. What's different is Trump faces untold state charges as well, so Pence can't pardon him like Ford did Nixon.

Today, 80 individuals and organizations received official requests for documents to corroborate the serious accusations of continuing malfeasance on multiple fronts, in 2 weeks those requests become subpoenas, but they already make destroying any documents requested a serious crime. If the democrats are having a circle jerk, I'll give you one guess who's kneeling in the middle of that circle mouth agape.

Videosift has it's own specific definition of what it considers inappropriate snuff. That definition may not be the dictionary or your personal definition, but it's the one that counts, and Lucky's interpretation is the final word when there's a question.

I thought this falls under the "incidental portion of an informative news report or documentary" exception since it showed in detail how the dam failed, but what I think doesn't really matter.....also I can't see the people at all on my tablet.

OK. I'll ask the question. Which one?

EIA Abbreviation for:

enteroinsular axis
enzyme immunoassay
Equality Impact Assessment
excessive inappropriate aggression
exercise-induced asthma
external iliac artery
extracorporeal immunoadsorption

Interesting....isn't he saying that mainly white areas tend to be better? That seems to be a fairly racist position.
Odd that he mentions areas all over the country, but details only from southern states, as if the whole nation is historically racist like the secessionist states.
Let's talk Vermont, who actively encourages non white immigration and those who go tend to report being treated kindly with respect, yet they're still far below average in diversity.
I live in Humboldt county, which is much whiter than average. I can't figure out why more non whites don't move here unless it's a lack of development and services. Those I've known were happy here and saw less racism than they had in major cities.

The laugh track addition is just dumb and inappropriate. Often the shot of the crowd showed them sitting quietly while raucous laughter erupted from the track over nothing funny.

@bobknight33 can you explain why you downvoted this comment? Do you find it inappropriate or irrelevant? I certainly don't, and probably would have promoted the song myself.

Believe it or not, I personally actually like having you around on the sift, both for your non-political videos and for your political comments (although I think I've yet to be swayed by any of your arguments and I'm an ocean away in any case). I don't want to see you banned for abusing downvotes, but it's a serious dick move. I know it's tough but I suggest you keep pleading your case rather than trying to punish or silence others.

More like Ford said he drunkenly hit and ran, Kavanaugh denied it, and 5 friends said they saw nothing and they think he's a good driver even when "going to sleep in public" drunk (he doesn't pass out, remember) in writing with no cross examination (making their claims completely meaningless under the law).
And let's not forget the other two who claim he hit and ran from them as well, still totally uninvestigated but the FBI is interviewing Ramirez today.

So, because there was no witness examination, there are no witnesses, so it's her word against his (now x3), by Republican design. If her (their) word(s) against his isn't enough to create reasonable doubt about his past actions to you, I declare you unreasonable.
If you're prepared to put another probable sex abuser on the court because they'll vote to protect Trump from his crimes (exactly why he's nominated, and why they won't rescind the nomination under any circumstances) I again declare you unreasonable.
If you think his demeanor and professionalism displayed in the hearings are appropriate for a lifetime member of the highest court in the land, yet inappropriate for a teenager caught drinking, I declare you unreasonable.

I agree, there's no proof the accusations happened.
There could easily be proof that contradicts her story, though, and if there is, it makes an FBI investigation dangerous for her.
If she/they can prove he lied under oath about details that can be proven, even if the underlying charge can't be, he should be disqualified to be a judge imo.

Far more worrying to me is the accusations he helped his mentor, Kozenski, hide his decades of sexual misconduct, abuses he was removed from the bench/forced into early retirement for but that Kavanaugh, his close friend and confidant, claimed to know nothing about, even though Kozenski had public websites dedicated to racially and sexually inappropriate materials and many accusations of inappropriate behavior at work, including forced pornography viewings in his chambers by female clerks.
Edit: if he's willing to hide one bosses crimes, what's he prepared to do for Trump?

Yes, I hope we've made some progress since the way Anita Hill was attacked for coming forward at great personal cost, but I doubt it. It's clear those in control are unphased by the accusations, true or not, because he's their only chance to drive the court far right. Nothing else matters to them. That is a sad state we find ourselves in.

Hannah put on a good show with a big heart, but it made me sad to see her indict her own comedy for perpetuating "trauma."

Laughter is how we identify inappropriate behavior (what she called "trauma"), acknowledge that it has no place in good society, and (most of all) embrace the messenger. Good comedy is medicine.

Well, if you want to go that route, sure, still no equivalency between slick Willie who inappropriately got a blow job from a willing subordinate and tried to obfuscate out of it earning him an impeachment along with a few unverified and mostly unreported accusations of groping and a pedophile, or a blackmailing mistress abuser, or Dumb Donald who bragged on tv and radio about groping and leering at underage girls in pageants he ran and offering bribes and gifts to sleep with his friends wives while he was married....not to mention the multiple sex workers/models/porn stars he paid for sex (or to be quiet about how bad it was) and accusations of everything from groping to outright rape, and is being sued over it.
Or ran charities he used as a personal piggy bank to pay off legal debts and buy portraits of himself and fake magazines with him on the cover.
Or ran fraudulent schools and admitted it.....and has yet to pay a price for any of it besides the fines levied over his fraudulent schools.

Pretty sure the Clinton foundation has been thoroughly investigated, and I'm not hearing any charges pending....Trump can't say the same.

So no....no equivalency.