I think he said it in the interview. He's paid to be obnoxious.

Wow, everyone making comments here (except voodoo, cause i blocked his comment so i don't know what he's on about) are just as opinionated and obnoxious as they think Steve is.

Absolute intolerance of an opposing opinion is what is on display.

At least Harvey likes Obama! He thinks people who don't like Obama are racists!

But it is interesting to see the abuse heaped on this guy because he is politically incorrect, and the abuse heaped on anyone who might call themselves a believer in a God.

You say things like 'asshole' and 'sweet monkey jesus' and you don't give one shit who you offend.

You think he is the epitome of offensiveness, then you do your damnedest to be offensive in your criticism.

I saw your post...it's what finally put me over the edge with these two. I hit that point with QM several years ago, before he got tired of the place, and I've been running close to doing the same with lantern and bob. They're just proving too obnoxious to be worthwhile anymore.

It's heavily implied by the contrast between the two characters. The counterpoint to obnoxious flamboyance isn't reserved, professional effeminancy but such straight masculinity that the viewer is surprised to learn the other character is also gay. Again, I get that this is caricature and comedy, but I couldn't help but feel that this video was saying, intentionally or not, that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to be gay, a sentiment which is evidently shared by overcast.

And how exactly does it dismiss it? I no where said that gay men must be flamboyant. I said that suggesting that gay men must look and act straight or face the consequences is deeply problematic. I have no problem with gay men who feel they only differ from straight men with respect to who they like to date. I do have a problem with someone suggesting that ALL gay men need to look and act that way. To me that seems like trying to manage difference so it's palatable to mainstream norms.

Full disclosure: I'm a transsexual, and unless you were extremely lucky or started transitioning before the onset of puberty, that means spending part of your transition, or in the worst case the rest of your life, looking visibly "not normal" to everyone else. I was not flamboyant, I was polite, unassuming, and did my best to fit in, but for a few years my mere existence was, to many people, as obnoxious and offensive as the flamboyant man in this video. Does that mean I deserved the hate and discrimination I got? I sure hope not. The fact that this video seems to say don't look different or you'll get what's coming to you, hits a nerve for me because for several years I COULDN'T look "normal" however much I wanted to. I'm just thankful I'm past that phase and people now see me as I see myself, treat me how I want to be treated, and I can live a "normal" life, because if this video is anything to go by then that's the hurdle you have to clear before you've earned the right not to be hated or discriminated against.

Well how else are we supposed to read it? The sympathetic character looks and acts "normal", and the viewer is led to assume that he is straight, with the twist at the end being that he's gay too, albeit a kind of gay that straight people won't find threatening, i.e. just like any other average guy except for whom he dates. After this revelation, the unsympathetic, annoying, obnoxious, flamboyant gay guy turns to himself and says "I'm not oppressed: I'm just an asshole!" In other words, gay people allegedly don't experience oppression and those that feel that they do are probably just obnoxiously flamboyant, like this guy, and hence deserve any negative reaction they get.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that this is just a comedy sketch, and likewise anything even approximating the flamboyant man's behavior would be completely inappropriate in the workplace. But that said, I find it deeply disturbing that the implied messaging here is "if gay people just looked and acted like straight people, except in the bedroom, no one would have any problem with them."

Whenever I see videos where they're shooting from a helicopter, I wonder why they don't catch their empties. That's a lot of hot brass they're dropping all over, wasting shells and contaminating whatever's below them. Why?
I agree, this reporter both has balls of steel and is obnoxious, but my thought was he could have simply given one of the military a go-pro instead of going with them, and 3 more children (or 2 thin adults) could have been saved.

That CNN bloke is rather obnoxious.

As an alternative, check out this raw footage, taken by an Austrian MEP:
http://youtu.be/9IXK7I-6OvU?t=3m57s

Sorry, but I'm inclined here to call this one as I see it.

If Mr. Veitch is trying his hardest to come across as a loud-mouthed, peace-disturbing, douche-nugget, then I must commend him on a job well done. Really would have made my day to reach the end of the clip and find this obnoxious dicktard flopping around on the ground like a beached fish as a couple of the legit officers steadily pump some serious Mega-voltage through him via their several well-tuned tazers. A-hole.

He's about a 7 out of 10 on the obnoxious scale

What a collection of obnoxious, elitist asshats. They've already overcome, they're running the asylum.

This faux news head is obnoxious.

I'm not a "Feminist" I am, and forever shall remain an "Equalist". Enough with this "Lets fix one problem at a time" bullshit, Race, gender, stature, age, everyone deserves the same rights, why don't we try to push forward for the betterment of everybody?

My biggest complaint about Feminism is basically how misunderstood the goal actually is by some, to the point where it gets waved around like a banner for college girls saying that their sex is superior (Think basically Britta from community personified.)

I've just been called an ass too many times by the *feminists in my last paragraphs to actually call myself by that name anymore, but I think Equalist suits my personal beliefs better anyway.

*=I use the term "feminist" in this sense as the ones who more hinder the cause than help it by making themselves obnoxious.

I can agree with that, but it's also sacrilegious to drive one in your neighborhood. I mean, I can run my Jeep with open headers and be a loud obnoxious dickhead that sets off car alarms as I pass too, but why? No problem with this on the track, at the show, or in his garage, but on the street it's not just obnoxious, it's dangerous...I'm certain that is loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage to anyone on the sidewalk or in the street...and that's bad...MmmmmK?

I feel like I can take a middleground on the whole tailgating issue, as a commuting biker I tend to experience both ends of the equation quite regularly and IMHO the problem lies in the extremes in attitude.

On the one hand if you drive/ride a lot and have good confidence in the vehicle and roadcraft in general (frequently the case with professional van and truck divers) it can be extremely frustrating when people don't practice good lane and speed discipline. I don't mean people maintaining a decent pace (it's your problem if you want to go faster than posted limits and they don't) I mean people either:
A. Driving below the posted limit (within reason)
B. Accelerating to speed absurdly slowly or slowing to 2mph to take a corner you could hit at 10-20 comfortably
C. Hogging the outside/passing lane because THEY are going as fast as THEY want to go so why should they speed up or slow down to get out of everybodys way? (C**TS!)

Under the above circumstances I understand why people end up tailgating, in fact I think it happens without much of a conscious effort most of the time. They are going so far below the pace the seems reasonable that you close the gap without realising. Getting to this stage is understandable/inevitable, it's what you do next that defines you as a responsible road user:

A responsible driver/rider at this point backs off, the point has already been made to the driver in front. They know they are going slower than you want to go or that you want to pass in the passing lane they are hogging. Sitting on their bumper is not only dangerous to both of you but it's obnoxious and likely to be counter productive. When you see someone driving too close your natural response is to slow down for safety or simply as a fuck you to the other guy. Even if you were about to get out of their way you might change your mind and think "screw you buddy I got the hint but now your just being rude".

When I back away I find people let me through far more often, wheras in the past when i've just tail gated them like a dick it's got me nothing but two angry motorists (and a hugely elevated chance of an incident). The lorry driver could have left a bigger gap but it didn't look that unreasonable (plus lorries have a hard time gaining speed and are naturally inclined (and taught) to preserve it where possible).

It might not be that unfair to suggest he was antagonising the car infront, but it pales into insignificance compared to...

.....the other side of the equation (which blue peugeot falls squarely into) who are generally IMHO far worse/more dangerous. The one's that adopt an imperious and selfish attitude to speed and road position. "I'm going as fast as I want to go and there's car on the inside that I'll pass in about 30seconds so I'm just going to sit in the outside lane going 2mph faster than slow lane traffic, because why should I have to go to the trouble of changing lanes to let someone else go faster than I want to go!"

Touching the brakes to give a tailgater a shock done properly is fine (I might even go so far as to recommend it) but holy shit! I think it'd be dangerous to scrub more than 1 or 2mph never mind an illegal stop on a dual carageway. Even if there was a mechanical reason for stopping it's still illegal to stop there without pulling off to the side.

Either way 45k in damages feels like pretty just deserts. I dearly hope he got at least a 12 month ban to boot. There's slipping up and then there's premeditated dangerous driving!

I usually try to see things from everybody's perspective when it comes to stuff like this but the Peugot driver is so disproportionately stupid and reckless than I can't really even try to defend him/her. I get why they might have been annoyed but that all became irrelevant the moment they tried to cause an accident!