http://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-hillary-clinton-donald-duck-2016-10

She's obviously used to practically ripping her shirts off. Like WTF is with the trying to duck your head out first???

If she did it properly, and tugged a bit under her arms and towards the back, she'd be fine.

Crabs dont care. They lack the mechanism to understand their predicament. There is nothing inside a crab that could give informed consent.

Ducks are different, they might not be the cleverest dinosaur, but my guess is they would consciously avoid the slide if they had the choice. The crabs just apply chaos theory.

Informed consent in this case (the crab video) is the human consent that this is funny.

Bryce: Most humans like waterslides. Or pretend to like them (peer pressure). I hate waterslides. Unavoidable if you have kids though. All humans stop liking waterslides after a variable number of consecutive slides (in my case 0). Crabs dont care.

Big difference in informed consent.

Reminds me of that slide the baby ducks went down after trying to get at the food at the top.

1. I tend not to like lists like these, so I always ensure that at least some answers are completely made up. In protest I will not reformat this list to make it more readable.
2. I was quite good at fencing. I was Irish national sabre champion, but that's a lot less impressive than it sounds.
3. I won Miss Fencing Intervarsities 3 years running. I'm male.
4. I'm a Monty Python fan to an unhealthy degree. I co-wrote the first Python FAQ online, based on actual questions that were asked frequently.
6. I have called every living member of Monty Python 'Michael' except Michael Palin. I called him Terry. None of them called me on it.
7. I have what amounts to a secret crush on someone here on the sift. They always say what I'm thinking, but far more eloquently than I ever can. I grin when they upvote me.
8. I have a Scaramanga-style extra nipple.
9. I have a son. My girlfriend's waters broke while I was watching Alien. I'm more proud of the second part than the first... lots of other people have tiny pet humans.
10. I was once kicked in the head by Armand Assante (a b-list-ish actor).
11. I can sing the names of about 20 particularly nasty diseases.
12. I'm batman.
13. I've been online since the 80s, but at this stage the web is pretty much read-only for me. I'm more active here on the sift than anywhere else, and that's not saying much.
14. I was in Russia during the 'invasion of Georgia' in 2008. In fact, I was in the mountains bordering the two countries and saw the situation almost first-hand. Before then I had little confidence in the news we get here in the west; now I have almost none. Stuff broadcast as fact was (to me) easily proven false at the time, and the subsequent UN report backs up my side of the story.
15. I teach tai chi.
16. One of my happiest memories is not sleeping with a hot (and very cool) Norwegian woman.
17. I once ran a marathon backwards. It's not as easy as it sounds.
18. My grandmother owned race horses, including one who holds a significant record in Cheltenham. She's quite famous here in Ireland (to a certain generation at least).
19. Online (and sometimes off) I tend to use anagrams of my name. The idea is that it's hard to find Noims from my real name (until someone ruins that), but not too hard to go the other direction. My avatar is based on the same principle. There are at least 3 other Noimses online, but I was the first.
20. My favourite piece of software is the vi editor (specifically gvim). I have no idea what my favourite book, music, or non-python film are.
21. I'm a keen gamer, but most offline. I hate Steam. I've been playing Nethack since the 80s, and still play in the devnull competition yearly... it's the longest running online game tournament there is.
22. I think one of the worst facts in the world is that marketing works.
23. I was in a metal band called the Bubonic Duck-Fuckers from Hell (BDF).
24. I used to be big into RPGs (role playing - not rockets). I once got first prize in 3 games in a single weekend convention with 4 game slots.
25. I love the number 12, and know all the powers up to 12^12. Consequently I dislike the number 5. I strongly tend to favour multiples/powers of 12 over those of 5.

So, after a Google... I guess what I've always referred to "100mph tape" was called by some American forces "duck tape" regarding its water sealing properties and someone decided to make a brand name from that. From what I've seen, the two names are interchangeable.

The brand is duck, so yes this is duck tape.

Do people really think it's Duck Tape and not Duct Tape?

Stupid ducks *kill

That would be AWESOME if he was. But in actuality---because of the tail rotor still spinning and then how the main rotor blades droop as they slow down (at just about the right height-with no visual profile end o- to chop someone driving a semi or a bus in half)---the entire helicopter is a rotating engine of death until everything comes to a halt...
Thus, the duck and run of people getting out from a chopper. And not duck and run towards the tail rotor specifically.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

The duck dynasty assholes? SERIOUSLY??!?

That's not even scraping the bottom of the barrel, that's scraping the mould off the underside of a septic tank.