He reverses back because he went way off course, not to apologise. It's nice that he did, although he'd be entitled (and probably more productive) to yell at the stupid parents.

Agreed @Payback. This could be a vicious circle where Gus has been blundering around for years with no idea he's causing trouble and poor Lexi has been getting into trouble because her ever-growing (and rational) fear of the mess is mistaken for guilt. Perhaps.

Cats are even more like this - if you don't tell off a cat right in the act, it's a waste of time that will just teach the cat that you're crazy.

Won't somebody please think of the Nazis!

Holy crap that little dude is eye-wateringly adorable. Look at the little smile at the end. Look at it. LOOK AT IT!

What's the film at 2:44, where Sean Bean dies in what looks like a WW2 fight between a German and a Russian?

BTW, the wink at 9:45 sums up the PR guy. He was treating the cop like an assistant, someone to do his bidding. Fuck you, you're the problem.

I think he said that to try to make sure the cop behaved, to make sure that the cop knew he'd be scrutinised if he did anything wrong. Seems unfair but with the number of bad cops, I don't blame this guy. Thankfully, it (probably) wasn't needed.

Or the bad guys could hit a bridge, a power plant, a hospital, a TV transmitter or one of literally millions of other targets which don't get 1% of the security that airports and aircraft do. It's frightening, to be honest. If this is our democratic, freedom-loving reaction to aircraft being hit, what would it be like if other targets were hit.

We have, quite quietly, become a society were we need to show our papers to the man and be either groped or ogled. How the fuck did this happen? Sure, it's only getting on to an aircraft now. Will we need it to get into a hospital if one is attacked? What about to get into a school?

Why not save time and check our papers and strip us bare when we leave the house? If you object to this, clearly you must have something to hide.

Thanks @harlequinn, that immediately flagged my generalise-o-meter but I couldn't think of specific cultures that didn't.

I presume the voice is because they don't have a good English speaker, so they got a high-school level translation and fed it to a voice synthesizer.

*isdupe

I don't think it's a toss up, I said that I don't know how close it is and that the polls I've seen had them neck and neck - and you quoted me saying that it looks like Obama is going to win.

>> ^bmacs27:

Of course. What isn't. However it has the advantage of being aggregated across all of the data, and thus increasing sample size. It's true, if there is a consistent bias in the sampling techniques of all polling agencies that happens to consistently favor Obama, it might be off a little. However, it would have to be wildly off (and extremely anomalous given that the historical accuracy of polling is also factored in) for that to happen. But yes, it could happen. However, I'd be happy to bet that it won't, especially that most odds makers have him as about a 3-1 favorite. The narrowest moneyline I ever saw was right after the first debate when Obama commanded a -165. That's still better than a 3-2 favoring. Since you seem to think it's a tossup, you must be happy to give me even odds. Whaddya say... $10,000 bet?
>> ^Quboid:
Interesting @bmacs27, but only as reliable as its data. @moodonia, that's the bookie I was referring to, I guess that was nonsense, although I see their odds are very short on Obama. Bookies aren't fools, they'll have looked at the swing states so that's good to see.

Interesting @bmacs27, but only as reliable as its data. @moodonia, that's the bookie I was referring to, I guess that was nonsense, although I see their odds are very short on Obama. Bookies aren't fools, they'll have looked at the swing states so that's good to see.

Is that not close? I know US margins are tiny, IIRC Obama won in '08 with about 54% of the vote and that was described as nearly a landslide which sounds to me like a narrow margin. What about the margins of error in these polls, they're not going to be especially accurate. Also, what about electoral college votes, rather than the popular vote: i.e. what about the swing states, how are they polling?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^VoodooV:
they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.

The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.
Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?

The polls that are most accurate in this stuff have Obama at 50% and Romney at 47%. I'm sorry but this isn't that close, Obama has it.

>> ^VoodooV:

they are not neck and neck. That's shitty media pretending it's close so that they can increase their ratings.


The polls I've seen (which aren't many, admittedly) have them pretty even with Romney being ahead in some. Apparently a local (UK) bookie has paid out on Obama winning, which although done for publicity is an expensive gimmick if they're wrong so I don't know.

Maybe it's because of the FUBAR way US politics work, only about a third of people's votes matter - what are the polls like in Florida, Ohio and such like?

>> ^nashvillain:

Gotta admit it's always a little crazy to see a discussion about my video (yeah, I'm the person in it) taking place on other websites ya'll be nice now!


Oh, this is awkward. Also, it's a virtually unique opportunity as I spoke unguarded earlier, without thinking that the subject would ever know.

How does comments like mine make you feel? Are they upsetting? Understandable? Both?

Oh and btw, you look like Sarah Chalke. I'm not trying to make any point here, just sayin'.