I had 4 Demotivators at my desk 12 years ago:

I put this one up for our $280/hr consultant who managed to make the system less useable, less stable, and/or less maintainable every time he visited.

I put this one and this one up for my boss who routinely threatened to fire everyone or kill everyone when he found out that we were implementing his moronic "vision" to the letter and that it would never work.

Lastly, my person favorite, for the entire MIS department, because everyone's most refined skill was finger-pointing.

Ahhhhh, human tragedy...

Thank god most of them are American white people-At the very least my faith in humanity's ability to purge the water bugs from her own pool may remain steadfast for the foreseeable future....

*edit after comment down-vote:

So.....You got a problem with someone whose consistent comment theme suggests that he can't stand most American white folks because of the colour of their mettle? American whites are becoming increasingly and exponentially irresponsible, immoral, and ignorant and and I'm supposed to giggle and point at the developmentally-disabled of my clan?
Fuck that noise, crackers need to pull their collective heads outta their own asses.

Sorry, but Ching is right. There is no need to talk about this in terms of civil war, especially since that isn't even close to what this was showing.

A crowd, in particular because of its size, has its own weaknesses. It is naive to assume that large numbers mean that the police can not control or influence a protest. In fact, that is exactly what riot police train for: leveraging their small numbers and sophisticated weaponry against unprepared and untrained masses in order to achieve their objective. A successful protest and/or revolutionary group must know how to counteract the intimidation and violence of security services and their weaponry.

This is not 1920s India or 1960s USA. Pure nonviolent resistance does not spark moral outrage or wider, sustained support among the public nor does it create shame within the police and army that attack these movements. This is the 21st century, the neoliberal project is much more entrenched and will fight harder to hold on to that power. As I've learned from experience, it is ineffective and irresponsible to participate in peaceful protests and movements without considering the reaction of the state and preparing for it through training and equipment.

Perhaps you've gone out on a march once or sat in a park hearing some people talking about big ideas, but until you spend days, weeks and months actively resisting the powers that be, you don't really understand what happens in the streets.

I served in the Army. I had a top secret clearance. Anyone with half an ounce of brain matter knows you do not release classified information. And especially not to some foreign muckraker. If you have a story, you give it to Woodward and Bernstein, maybe. But unless you want to reap the whirlwind, you don't sow the wind. Manning is reaping what he sowed.

Also, I have nothing against social programs as long as it is a small percentage of what is being spent by the gov't. You can't have unlimited spending with limited income. It's irresponsible and detrimental to the economy on the whole.

I kind of agree with the douchebag sentiment. The guys attitude was definitely in the line of "asshole", and after he hit the woman the second time and started barreling after them screaming like a maniac and cursing them... He kind of asked for an accident.

The real issue I saw, and I may have to go look at it again at a higher resolution, but did he knock her out from the whiplash for a bit? It looked like she spent a good few meters lolling to the side of her cart. If that's the case, guy is definitely a fucking asshole. Childish irresponsibility without any recompense.

EDIT: yeah after watching it again, during the same stretch where she seems to be unconscious the guy says "Oh shit, she doesn't look so good". Doubt there's any chance of justice from the video though.

It certainly looks like the IRS is guilty of some excesses.

The problem is, it's hard for your average person to separate a legitimate complaint such as that vs the standard rabblerabblerabble whining about having to pay taxes in the first place.

One of the late night pundits nailed it. The IRS can't win. Even if they do their job perfectly, people still hate them because their job is to collect taxes. People want gov't services but they will do anything to avoid paying the bill. It's fucking stupid.

Tax evasion is a crime, bitches.

As for Mr. Issa's argument. He said these groups were being disenfranchised. Weren't all the petitions for the exemption status granted? Maybe you can make the argument that they had unfair scrutiny, but where is the crime if the exemption was granted anyway.

If anything, it seems to me that the exemption status is being abused horribly. It's one thing to be non-profit and seeking exemption. But if you're a political organization (left or right) with the ability to lobby, then you need to be taxed motherfucker. Or at the very least, someone needs to give me a good reason why a political organization shouldn't be taxed.

No taxation? Then no representation!

I don't care if you think we've got a spending problem or a revenue problem, the bottom line is that we have a budget problem and it's irresponsibility at it's highest to only focus on one side of that budget. You HAVE to look at spending AND revenue. We've been through this before, taxes do not kill private spending, at least not as a whole they don't.

The IRS excesses are definite issues that need to be dealt with, but the rest looks like another case of mock outrage.

I could see how one might think the dashcam owner set it up. He certainly sounds like he makes a "boom" noise before it happens.

If that were the case, beyond anything else I'd say it's not abuse, but an irresponsible prank. He/someone probably thought it would be funny to hide a container of compressed air in their trash is all.

Yeah, wow. I've seen a few instances of that, though when we were much, much younger and more prone to irresponsible stupidity.

That though... was like a murder-able offense. I hope that guy got his ass kicked later. Idiot friend indeed.

@Jerykk said "gross generalisations based on no evidence and a complete lack of understanding of how society currently works (or, in this case, does not work)."

The mentally ill: I live in Switzerland and, while our politics are far from perfect, you will not see mentally ill homeless people because they are cared for and given work by social institutions. If the mentally ill are homeless, it is society's fault.

The uneducated: almost unequivocally poor as well; it is the responsibility of any self-respecting, "civilised" society to make sure their entire population gets proper education. This doesn't mean everyone should have a PhD; learning a trade is also an education (& no useful job a human can do should be denigrated).
The way you say it, it's as if you're blaming uneducatedness on the uneducated, but would you know anything about how our societies work, you'd know that is completely illogical.

The irresponsible: considering what you follow up with, you basically mean here "the poor/uneducated", and you regurgitate the Fox News cliché of the dumb and reckless poor person wasting money and making all the wrong decisions. Yes, people with limited-to-no education (see above) will be easier to dupe into debt, bad credit/mortgages, etc, and they will also be less likely to know of (or accept the use of, you asshole Christianity) contraceptives, nor be able to afford abortions should they need one.

Second chances and recidivism: there's an interesting quote from an article on recidivism (taken from the Wiki): "Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry, and politics. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible."
The fact that, the more you treat a person who has committed a crime as a criminal, during and after hir internment, the more that person will have hir choices narrowed to exactly that. Especially when, on leaving detention during which nothing was learned (countries with the lowest recidivism have their inmates work and learn trades), society still brands them as criminal and refuses to let them survive in a legal fashion. Not to mention the ridiculously out-of-proportion rates of incarceration in the US, and for a number of non-crimes as well; what a great way to harden and anti-socialise your youths.

Are there lazy moochers and irreconcilable criminals out there? Definitely, but they are not the norm.

Most homeless people are either mentally ill or uneducated and irresponsible. Everybody falls on hard times. The people who plan ahead ultimately prevail. Don't buy stuff you can't afford, make safe investments, don't build debt, don't start a family when you can barely even support yourself... seemingly simple rules yet so many fail to follow them. Society may have laws but it is still very much a jungle where only the fit survive.

Second chances are nice in concept but generally wasted in practice. Most criminals are repeat offenders. Most homeless people would waste any money you give them and inevitably end up back on the streets.

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.

Kofi, you've got something there with that closer: "Tasmania: Where rationality prevails over dogmatism."
Can't hurt to suggest it as new motto to the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania


Oh, and guns are only good for killing and only approved professionals should be aloud to look at them or use them- Professionals like police, security personnel, and those recognized as enlisted military. I'm too irresponsible to wipe my own ass much less make any decisions regarding my personal safety and happiness and the world is such a scary place I can't walk outside for fear of mass shootings.

Thank god the system will tell me what to do and how to do it and what i can do it with. Thank you, broken and terminal system, you make personable responsibility so easy!! It's like I didn't have to think critically AT ALL!!

That is cool. I wish "authority" figures the world over were more like this. If cop from the US saw this he'd think: "this irresponsible idiot would immediately be to blame if a criminal suddenly crept into the area and killed a bunch of people while they were goofing off", while completely ignoring that people who go on public killing sprees are quite possibly revolting against overbearing police states.

Dude, you know these crazy cat people sometimes are funky..Hey lady-Why let a cat go into heat more than once if not to breed them?
Answer: Because they are cute and I am an irresponsible cat-lover.

Getting a job in engineering or medicine is probably going to be pretty safe. There are a lot of careers that are still safe. The problem is when you can barely afford to support yourself, then you get married and start a family. Or maybe even skip the marriage part and just have kids anyway because sure, why not? While there are many who have lost their jobs over the past few years, the ones who planned ahead and invested wisely are not living in poverty. The ones living in poverty are the ones who never managed their money well and made irresponsible choices, like having kids.

Spending tax money to improve welfare doesn't fix the root of the problem. It's like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The problem is that most people are irresponsible with their money and live beyond their means, building up debt while wasting what little income they have.