Someone screwed up leading up to this , , but the engine thrust causing the destruction was probably the right call , for whatever reason , the ship was on its way to simply crash into the marina, and that would likely cause _much_ more destruction. Also obviously too late to call the tug boats . (When the video starts)

Correct; Azipods. However, I thought that might be a bit of a technical reach. You know, as a skipper of a smaller craft, I'm expected to use some judgement---if the winds are too great, don't take my boat out. I think the skipper and pilot here screwed up.

But maybe someone can offer more perspective.

1. I just spent 45 minutes reading details of lives of people I have never met. At least, I don't think so. Hmmm.
2. I'm fairly new to VS and I'm marrying the man who introduced me to it.
3. We're getting married tomorrow .
4. This will be my second, and final, marriage.
5. I curse. A lot. My voice tends to carry (or I'm just loud) and this sometimes causes problems...for others.
6. I'm in corporate sales.
7. I'm very good at what I do...but I hate it.
8. I am an introvert. I hide it well. Or so I'm told.
9. I am an avid reader. Anything that catches my interest, so the titles on my bookshelves sometimes baffle people.
10. I have 2 sons who I hope I'm not screwing up too much.
11. I was considered a "troubled youth" and my parents sent me to military school.
12. Then I joined the army. So I guess it worked...but really I just wanted to get away from my state.
13. 5 years later, I came back. And haven't been able to make it out of this black hole for the last 10 years.
14. I smoked for 20 years, with only a few brief periods of quitting.
15. I quit 3 days ago, for the last time.
16. 15 is probably not true. Just to keep it honest.
17. I grew up in a family rife with addiction and dysfunction.
18. We have one of the closest family units I know, now.
19. I am a "grammar nazi," but I probably overuse ... and ( ).
20. I'm a sucker for cop and crime shows.
21. This has made me believe I could probably get away with murder.
22. I would never murder anyone...but I do often contemplate it. Mostly while driving in traffic.
23. I'm seriously considering deleting this post right now, but the beer is telling me not to.
24. I have a real passion for singing...but no talent for it. Cruel, cruel world!
25. I'm hitting submit before proofreading in order not to chicken out, so I apologize for any typos.

Thanks for this thoughtful response.

I agree 100% with the idea of catching more flies with honey idea. Treating people with respect. All of that stuff is patently true to me.

However. Of course there is a "however."

I don't agree with the "clearly condescending" assessment. I did not find the delivery condescending in the least. I found it sarcastic and pissed off and appropriate to the topic.

This video is not meant to add to the debate or woo people to her side. It is flat out laying out the facts with a take no prisoners attitude.

That you think this is condescending and I guess poisonous is interesting to me.

Is this indeed sexism at work? Did you read Crushbug's comment? Do you understand that women are "policed" as to their tone of voice all the time? In fact, your mother's (true) advice that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is actually the internalized oppression that we women struggle with all the time. Be sweet, be kind, be oblique. Manipulate your (male) partner into doing what you want by leading him to think it is his idea.

Just writing this out is making my stomach hurt. It is so poisonous, the suppression of free human expression that women are subjected to in so many cultures. (Think of young Japanese girls who cover their mouths coyly when they laugh.)

Having said all this, please don't think that I believe that men are the evil oppressors. Men have a different pressure put on them that distorts their psyches -- "be a man" is just as deadly as "be sweet".

I was just saying to a friend the other day -- I was wondering how it screws up little boys' heads when daddy leaves the house for a week long business trip, and tells his 4 year old son "You're the man of the house now. Take care of your mother." Good lord. He's a child! He needs her to take care of him!

Anyway. There is much that I agree with in your long and thoughtful response. I just don't think that these ideas are appropriately applied to this comedy video. As you sort of implied with your addendum.

He screwed up. Pulled it all the way out. It's just going to start in-growing again. You gotta get it free then chop it off so it heals up as a normal hair.

Or, you know, see a dermatologist.

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

Use of Deadly Force rules vary by state and even by jurisdiction.

This has to stop.

We should have laws about the when the use of deadly force is legal, set at the National level. Also, we can't have Police investigating themselves for violations, or to have their local Jurisdiction handling the trial. The police work with the legal side of things enough that there is a conflict-of-interest... both on a personal and monetary level.

One of two things need to happen for any trust to be restored, either Police need to stop screwing up... or they need to be held accountable for their actions by the courts.

Damnit Mike. Gotta screw up everything Monkees, don't you. Give the boys a break. Just because you're ashamed of and angry about your professional start is no excuse for trying to hide it from the world.

Nesmith was my favorite, but his apparent hatred for and control of all things Monkees has really gotten old.

Pointillism is amazing and beautiful. Though it seems to screw up peoples wrists. If that's really the case I hope artists will chose another method. You don't need to disable yourself for us.

Did I screw up? I will look at it immediately.

True, the constitution has some screwed up parts. However, there is a process in place to make or change amendments. If the bulk of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment, using the methods in place to do so, so be it. I'd give my guns up in that case. If the legislature decides to pass an unconstitutional law as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act, then they aren't getting them. The problem with unconstitutional laws, by the way, is that SCOTUS can always wink at the bill of rights and say that it is constitutional. I don't care for that, but again, it is a legal interpretation of the document if they do it. I'd give up my guns if that happened.

I don't even really have an issue if we go back to the assault weapon ban of the 90's. I get that we can make some changes and cut down on these incidents. I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision. You give someone due process to avoid being on the list, like we do to people accused of felonies before they are convicted, no problem. But as it stands, our President is just tossing an idea out there that absolutely violates multiple rights and people are eating it up like it was candy.

That is not the point. Government works a certain way and rarely is it in the favor of individual liberties. We knee jerked after 9/11 and created the Patriot Act, you know, the set of rules that gave us torture, drone strikes/raids into sovereign nations without their permission, and the NSA checking everything.

If you ban people from one of their constitutional rights because they end up on a government watchlist, then you have set a precedent for further banning. Then next we can torture people in lieu of the 5th amendment because they are on a watchlist (oh wait, we sorta already did that to a couple of us citizens in Guantanamo). The FBI fucked up and removed this guy from surveillance, even though he had ample terrorist cred. That shouldn't have happened, but should we lose our freedom because of their screw up?

What I don't understand is why do Christians bluntly defend the money system that often kicks them out of their home and become homeless?

Are they afraid God will strike lightning if they say something bad about a rich corporation?

The bible actually had a system called Jubilee where every certain number of years the system will *reset* and people get back what was taken from them as a chance to start over if things got screwed up.

Capitalism lacks any kind of *reset* to give people a second chance.

Listen to Michael Card's song *Jubilee* in which I didn't understand when I was younger so meant nothing to me but now that I understand it I see the flaws in all *systems* that isn't inspired by the true creator.

We need a new kind of *Jubilee* where the (debt) slaves are set free who paid their debts and got their land and home back and their family back if they were sold.

Today's system results in people making poor choices that hurt themselves such as prostitution out of control/drugged out brains where they can't see properly let alone drive.

my favorite part is when Lemon literally says, "Are you certain of the words you just said?"

Here's a hint you probably royally screwed up - if the moderator in a debate asks if you purposefully meant what you just said, you probably just sat on your own balls.