Edit: some of us would prefer the president be up to speed on day one, not as a spectator but as a leader. I get that a leader who's prepared to lead is a new concept, but we need one desperately.

You seem to be under the impression that distribution nation wide doesn't need constant supervision and revision. You are sadly misinformed.
The preparation from the Whitehouse isn't complete, distribution of most vaccines requires deep freeze shipping to facilities with proper sub zero storage, and all the equipment for each shot, and a system in place to offer it to only the most at risk (and to deny the asshole who won't wait), personnel, facilities, policies, and equipment. None of that is completed.

Edit: oddly you seem to think a program set up by the Trump team will be flawless and perfectly functional from day one, unlike every other program they set up. When it turns out they planned to use ice cream trucks for delivery, but they aren't cold enough so 30 million doses spoil on the docks, Biden shouldn't be prepared? When it turns out the vaccine that needs sub zero refrigeration is the only one that really works, he shouldn't have a backup plan ready? Why would you assume it will function adequately totally hands off when nothing works that way, especially the biggest mass vaccine program ever?

If you think the federal government isn't going to be in charge, you're again misinformed badly. Operation warp speed, the distribution policy/agency, is in charge... it's a federal program. It will need constant supervision and retooling. Biden will be directly in charge there and should be informed and prepared, not shooting from the hip.

You left out the federal government and manufacturers and manufacturers of needles etc...The most important players in distribution.


Lol...You act like the white house isn't directly in charge of the distribution, they are.

Biden is just now being told the details of the plan, who's involved, and how it's supposed to work. As the leader of the plan, he should be fully informed before taking charge so he can fix whatever the moron who's sycophants designed it screwed up. Until he knows the plan and where and how we are setting it up and what stage we are at, he cannot possibly make his own plans to improve and facilitate it. Duh, that's the point here. You can't be that dense.

Two months is not enough time to be properly briefed on everything he needs to know, as explained in the 9/11 report.

The army, cia, and other agencies had plans for Osama in spring 2001, but Bush was all but unaware of any issues because he lost a few weeks of briefing time during the transition. This is a MAJOR factor in the success of the attack, as he didn't take any action on a problem he was unaware of.

Same goes here.

I know you disagree, you do little else. Fortunately, people with your mindset won't be running things for long, then we can make progress on this and a multitude of fronts Trump screwed up...is it that you even disagree he screwed up his pandemic response despite America being the worst hit country, and despite Covid not disappearing November 4 like he promised? Edit: do you not think it likely a trump response plan could be improved on?

There's so much to fix, like a looming depression, looming homeless armies about to be evicted, payback of the payroll tax holiday, new war with Iran, revision of our Russian policies, international relationships to mend, internal civil unrest, complete erosion of trust in law enforcement, 4 more years of completely ignoring infrastructure, treaties to rejoin, etc. He needs every second available to be as briefed on everything so he doesn't repeat Trump's ignorance of policy and law leading to more trumpian mistakes of ignorance and bravado, costing more lives.

Gotta love the internet where twats engage in the fucking typical "reading between the lines and pulling something I didn't say out of their nether regions" shoot from the hip bs...

I don't suggest for a moment that MJ (or any other herbal concoction) is the first stop for medical treatment in the slightest, but it's obvious in this video that, despite multiple surgeries and obvious use of many prescription drugs (she notes that opiates don't even touch the pain) that she was not getting relief... In the context of the video, and noting that her results are anecdotal, if it does result in relief for a person, it's worth trying right? Particularly if you are afflicted with constant agonising pain for which standard medicine hasn't provided a solution?

For instance, my wife suffers from long term depression and panic attacks. Therapy and medicine didn't help (in regards to drugs, it did more harm than good), but acupuncture actually made a significant different (for whatever reason). Should everyone ditch psychology for being turned in to a human hedgehog? Hell no. Should they try it to see if it helps? Why the fuck not?

I'm sorry about what happened to your dad (I'm guessing due to your aim at homeopathic rather than medical that he was on a alternate "treatment" that did nothing to prevent his death?), but stop taking your trauma out on other people. My point was to people who have exhausted more orthodox treatments but who might be hung up on "drugs are bad mmmm'kay" in regards to medical marijuana treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was thinking much the same thing. I think he's hamming it up a bit to suit the show, but that was some pretty deep honest introspection there, along with an almighty well of angst.

I'm starting to get why people vote for Trump. To throw a radical in to the equation, for better or worse. It's a gamble, and it's likely going to turn out bad if he wins the presidency, but it's not like the establishment is going to magically reform itself...

And though it's his show and he's trying to run it, I though Colbert was actually ruining it a little bit. It became apparently pretty early in that Bill was talking from the heart for a change (rather than shooting from the hip), it might be worthwhile listening.

Or, what's the point of 3 lasers and a bunch of scopes if you're shooting from the hip?

And how is shooting from the hip anything like sniping? You don't take 3 shots at something when you're sniping. You should hit it the first time with confidence especially at such short range.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'predator, how it should have ended' to 'predator, how it should have ended, shoot from the hip' - edited by Fusionaut

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Here's some shoot from the hip feedback:

Positive:

High production value
Bright colorful interface
Good music and sound

Negative:

Even after reading the instructions and playing a few times- I wasn't sure how the gameplay works. I connected very few blocks and the levels seem to complete no matter what I do.

Busy- lacks the simple physics of a stacking game like GlassTower2

Still an amazing effort to make a complex game like this.

Roland would not approve. A gunslinger shoots from the hip!

*sigh*

The reporter did a fairly good job of making them look like dewbs. And at the end, she basically summed it up with, "They like her because they like her, and really have no idea what the issues are." In that regard, why don't we elect Oprah or Dr. Phil? They're straight shooters that shoot from the hip and tell it like it is without lipstick.

My favorite policy is that she shoots from the hip and she's a straight shooter and tells it like it is, gosh darn it

Towards the end of the interview she asks him about his mormon faith, and his emotional response and what he says makes it quite clear that he's sure there's an eternity of solace and harmony awaiting him no matter what happens in this life.

He's not a horrible monster, he just has enough charisma (heavy emphasis on 'just'), mixed with just enough stupid to be dangerous in front of a camera (heavy emphasis on 'stupid'). When he's in the Fox studio he can just shoot from the hip, making up whatever he likes and there's no one there to call him on it. Then he gets to an interview like this and suddenly he's not quite so sure he meant what he said.

I kinda like Rush. He's like Rorschach from the Watchmen. He shoots from the hip! I mean, if the whole of the GOP talked like him, then they would probably explode, as if a naked blue man blew 'em up. But at least they would blow up being true to themselves.

Way to shoot from the hip kids!.....I whipped out the *instaban today, before I even checked into the user, that's how good ya need to get.....or better-
http://www.videosift.com/video/Somethings-Missing-Foot-Massage-Hidden-Camera


®Spam has an odor, you don't have to eat it to smell it, or for that matter,even open the can.....to remember how delicious it is to annihilate...

None taken at all, I shoot from the hip in a sense sometimes. I have actually told many people about the video, even my parents lol, since it makes for a good discussion

Far be it from me to say the M16 or M4 is flawless. Like I said, I have no real training experience with the weapons and besides, no firearm is perfect, which is why I intentionally made no claim that there were no real problems pointed out in the piece. Clearly, real soldiers like MarineGunrock are more qualified to comment on the technical issues of firearms that he trains with and uses. My point is that this piece is misleading and doesn't give an accurate perspective from which to view criticism of the rifle (thus why I pointed out idiotic comments like "shooting from the hip on full auto", "C-mag < 30-round mag", etc). My complaint is one of journalistic standards (or lack thereof), and on this topic I believe I am qualified to comment.

The layman, watching this clip, would think, "ZOMG AK74 > M4, US military rifles suck!", because the layman doesn't know shit about firearms, and is forced to take the statements made in the piece at face value. It's the same reason why we have the assault weapons ban in the US, and why people seem to think smart weapons can compensate for poorly trained shooters, and why people believe that it's ok to use FMJ rounds in self-defense, but hollowpoints are automatically only used to kill police officers. I look upon this piece with utter contempt, not because I think the M16 is better than the AK or anything like that, but rather because I find the lack of journalistic integrity in this report appalling.

Can the M16 and M4 be improved? Surely. Does this piece level constructive criticism to a reasonable degree? Not at all.

A: Of course you've never met anyone who thought Tae Kwon Do was made for cage fighting. I was being facetious:

You're full of horse puckey, putting it lightly. If you were being facetious, you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot.

The reason that I said it was that scholars and practitioners generally agree that grappling with limited striking is the best form of one-on-one, unarmed combat, which people love to bring up when talking about Tae Kwon Do. And, which I tend to agree with.

What scholars and practitioners generally agree with that? Bullcrap. I have never heard anybody but non-fighters say that, nor is there a general consensus that there is any single perfect mixture of striking and grappling in MMA. Hell, most of the wins in the UFC title bouts recently have been won through striking: Gonzaga's, Serra's, GSP's, Rampage, etc.

In fact, the general consensus among MMA fighters is that there is no single best combination of striking and grappling. The mixture of grappling and striking is always dependent on the background of the fighter and calibrated to his particular technical and physical abilities. And I've never heard a good fighter with "limited striking" skills, that is unacceptable for any good fighter. A good fighter, even one who's a submission specialist, will have proficient striking skills at the very least, or he's not a good fighter.

But not all fighting takes place one-on-one, or on even, equally familiar ground. (i.e.: a cage fight) The martial arts merely train you in different ways to be prepared for given situations.

I agree that not all fighting takes place one-on-one or on even ground. I do, however, hold that MMA-style training is the single most effective form of training for any kind of unarmed combat, period. I also do not believe that any unarmed martial art will adequately enable you to actually fight multiple opponents with a greater chance of winning than losing.

B. Forms are not the only thing you need to learn to fight. I agree, but they do help impart technique and physical fitness. Otherwise, why do boxers shadowbox? Why do pilots fly training missions? Why do hunters practice shooting targets? Martial artists punch bags, break boards, spar and use all sorts of different ways to train. No combat art relies only on forms, and even modern MMA fighters don't train ONLY in the ring.

Forms are not good at imparting technique, they're a waste of time if you're trying to learn to fight. Sorry. Boxers shadowbox because it is a dynamic exercise, in which there is no set order of technique. That's why they move the same way that they do during a fight, with no pre-conceived list of things to do. Shadowboxing is not comparable to doing forms. Boxers are not just standing in horse stance or front stance and throwing chambered punches, then maybe sidestepping, because a pre-memorized complex set of motions like a traditional form will never be applicable in a fight, individual techniques must be learned in dead drilling, but they must be chained together during dynamic training. Pilots fly training missions, similiarly, because it is a dynamic exercise, that's why they don't just fly the same mission over and over again, they run many different scenarios with things changing every time.

Modern MMA fighters do not train ONLY in the ring. However, good MMA fighters NEVER try to train by:
- breaking boards
- doing forms

They DO train by:
- dead drilling: for re-enforcing a SINGLE new technique being learned, this is largely de-emphasized when a fighter is preparing for a fight
- shadowboxing: dynamic movement, takes up a small percentage of training time, mostly done for warmup
- doing padwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, and sometimes resisting opponent, takes up a medium amount of training time
- doing bagwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, takes up about a medium amount of time
- sparring: dynamic movement against a resisting opponent, takes up a large amount of time

Forms are a waste of time if someone's trying to learn how to fight.

C. Yeah, your not bursting any bubbles here. I know that you think you're smart but I've had the same thought about fighting multiple opponents, as have millions of other people. I never said that I could take on 8 opponents. What I said was that I visualized 8 opponents when practicing a form. It's a way of keeping focused. I don't believe I would have an advantage over anyone, alone or otherwise, before I fight them. To do that would just be asking for failure. I'll tell you this though: If I ever DO have to fight more than one person, I'm not going to say "Hey guys, wait here while I run home and get my 1911 and my baseball bat." I, unlike you, am hopefully going to confront the situation in a realistic manner.

Ok, so remind me again how all this visualization during forms is going to carry over to a fight? Confronting a situation in which you need to fight unarmed against multiple opponents in a realistic manner means acknowledging you're going to get your ass kicked if you try fighting back unarmed, and the only reasonable solutions are: stopping the fight, running, or using a force multiplier (i.e. weapon, friends, etc.). Unlike me. Uh-huh. Please tell me exactly how I'm being unrealistic about this. How exactly would YOU plan on confronting a situation with multiple opponents?

I hate to burst YOUR bubble but fighting in cages has been around for a lot longer than the late 80's. Not to mention, I never said anything about MMA in my first post. You pulled that one right out of your cock holster.

Oh really? Cage fighting's been around since before the late 80s? There's a reason why cagefighting is nearly synonymous with MMA. Hm. Ok, I'll give you the early 80s, maybe even late 70s if you push it. Oh, you meant before that? Please cite your proof. No, seriously. I'm waiting. Oh, and Bloodsport and Mad Max don't count as historical documents. Me and my cock holster will be waiting. I shoot from the hip. Or pelvis, if you want to be specific.