>> ^Morganth:

"I'll help you in a moment, just let me check my bumper first."


"More like... damn... damn... Wait here, I need my tire iron."

"I'll help you in a moment, just let me check my bumper first."

>> ^jonny:

jonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war
NetRunner: How and when did he show this?

40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?

I'm not particularly happy about him ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, and I'm no optimist about Afghanistan in general, but I don't think it was some sort of obviously boneheaded or bloodthirsty decision, either.

Here's your original quote in full:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

This in response to the question of "are we about to invade Iran?" with the clear implication being that you think Obama is prone to get America involved in pointless wars without any real consideration of either the short term or long term impact to the country.

The relevant Obama bumper-stickers on foreign policy from the 2008 campaign were "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars," and "I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

I think his record shows that he's held true to both of those, and overall has wielded American power quite judiciously these last 3.5 years. I'm a big pessimist on Afghanistan, but I can't really blame Obama for trying to do something to wind down our involvement there in a way that doesn't leave the situation in Afghanistan much worse for both the Afghans and us. I don't think that's possible, but I can't blame him for not sharing in my fatalism.

>> ^jonny:
Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.


And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?

My comments after "All that said," were just my general take on the whole question of war with Iran. Even rereading it now, I find it hard to see how you got the impression I was accusing you of being a Romney supporter.

What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.

But years of arguing with blankfist should've taught me, asking people for evidence to support their argument is a dirty partisan trick only practiced by political hacks like me...

>> ^MilkmanDan:

If somebody double-parks you in like that, I think it is basically reasonable to give them a "nudge" if it will buy you enough room to get out. But as mentioned by @Payback, it looked like there was likely enough room to squeak through at the correct angle either without hitting either car, or certainly after a light push or two of the offending car.
Being pissed off makes us take things further than necessary, but I'd still say that is not much of an excuse for when he tried to do a sustained push and the rear end slid around into the innocent bystander car to the right.
I kinda miss the good old days, when cars had bigass bumpers and weren't afraid to use 'em. My first car was a 1979 Lincoln Continental. That thing had a huge bumper with thick rubber pads at the contact points, not to mention what seemed like a 20' long hood (that was 60% empty, not like modern cars where the machinery fills the entire hood). In that car, high mass + thick bumper = anything blocking your path wouldn't stay there for long.


Yeah, also meant that in a crash you died.

Seriously, crash in a new car compared to an old car and you are umpteen times more likely to walk away from the accident. I think more easily dinted bumpers is a small price to pay for being alive.

If somebody double-parks you in like that, I think it is basically reasonable to give them a "nudge" if it will buy you enough room to get out. But as mentioned by @Payback, it looked like there was likely enough room to squeak through at the correct angle either without hitting either car, or certainly after a light push or two of the offending car.

Being pissed off makes us take things further than necessary, but I'd still say that is not much of an excuse for when he tried to do a sustained push and the rear end slid around into the innocent bystander car to the right.

I kinda miss the good old days, when cars had bigass bumpers and weren't afraid to use 'em. My first car was a 1979 Lincoln Continental. That thing had a huge bumper with thick rubber pads at the contact points, not to mention what seemed like a 20' long hood (that was 60% empty, not like modern cars where the machinery fills the entire hood). In that car, high mass + thick bumper = anything blocking your path wouldn't stay there for long.

The bumper of the car on the right at 0:20 is just barely hanging on, isn't that danger on the road?

tug boats use tires a bumpers.
oil tankers use other boats as bumpers.

>> ^Fletch:

Yes, it is a virus.


Is there any kind of cure, Doc?

The issue is not racism its that people don't feel that if they are racist they will look like a total idiot. Which intern is a cometary on the education or level of intellect in a society.

Racism should not be stopped by people thinking they will get beat up by bean racist or that it might offend people , racism should simply not happen because people realise if they are racist they are being stupid and being stupid should not be a quality people want to be known for.

for example if you demon-strait you are stupid by having this racist bumper sticker then its message is lost by the fact that people would not want to listen to someone that is stupid , making the bumper sticker self defeating and redundant.


The only way to reduce people making or buying these bumper stickers is by increasing educational funding so that more people can identify the self defeating nature of the sticker.

Same with openly being overly religious.
>> ^longde:

Despite what racists and their apologists say, there is no consequence for being openly bigoted in American society. In fact, in some places, it can be a boon.

Only as long as you ignore totalitarian political correctness and "hate crime" laws.

>> ^longde:

Despite what racists and their apologists say, there is no consequence for being openly bigoted in American society. In fact, in some places, it can be a boon.

Your video, Racist Bumper Sticker Going Viral -- TYT, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If I'm not mistaken, bumper stickers are found on cars, so......

*Wheels
*Doublepromote
*Quality

Funny how this website in question is offended by a black president, yet doesn't seem to mind selling paraphernalia that gives the thumbs-up to marijuana ......oh well.

For a vehicle with adequate clearance, I would wager that the smoothest way to traverse these (other than swerving into the other lane or otherwise going around them) might very well be to have a mild amount of speed built up -- something like 10-15 MPH or more. Remember the episode of Mythbusters where they drove on a washboard road at varying speeds, and the higher speeds were generally smoother?

Of course, you'd have to have enough play and range in the suspension to have that apply here, and they might just be too tall for the great majority of vehicles. But if that is the case, then they would also be presenting high-center and front/rear bumper scrape problems to a whole bunch of standard vehicles. If that is the case, I think a little civil disobedience (or disobedience to the housing complex or whatever entity installed them) might be in order involving a few sledgehammers and shovels...

>> ^Duckman33:

Sweet, next time I'm on the freeway I'll go 5 miles an hour since 55 is just a "suggestion". I wonder how far I'll get before I get a ticket for impeding traffic?
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^jimnms:
That is just ridiculous. Last week I drove through a neighborhood that had these big long speed bumps on the road. I was going the speed limit, but if you go faster than 5 MPH on the bumps your front bumper bottoms out when you come off it. They don't give much of a warning either, the speed bump sign is about 5ft. from the first bump. If they're going to have a 25 MPH speed limit here, they at least need to have speed bumps that you can go over at the fucking speed limit.

The limit is a limit, not a requirement. It's the fastest you're allowed to go, not the speed at which you must travel. Simple fact is that the slower you go the safer you and other road users are. If the speed bumps make you slow down below the speed limit then they're doing their job.



Whatever. I was clearly talking about the video, which clearly isn't a freeway. They don't have speed bumps on the freeway.