muff528

WTVT in Tampa. I found a link to the interview at their site but it has since been heavily edited from the version I heard aired. ETA: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/25097511/2014/03/28/the-full-story-behind-that-instant-karma-viral-video http://fox13now.com/2014/03/28/video-driver-who-filmed-redneck-road-rage-talks-about-the-crash/ Neither is the "full" interview I saw. E again TA: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2591528/Road-rage-revenge-Woman-films-pickup-truck-driver-tailgates-cuts-loses-control-crashes.html from this link: "'This pathetic excuse for a human being tailgated me for about three minutes,' she wrote. 'After about a minute, and me shaking my head, I pulled out my phone and started recording.'" and "She added beneath the video: 'I've recorded circumstances like this before, catching idiots doing stupid things, but never ever had this happen.'"

Puppies! (both kinds

Red spots skydive in the rain

Family Guy. Either that or Hee Haw.

TV interview a few minutes ago. She said she was turning left in 2 or 3 miles (not .5 miles). She also said she has previously, on several occasions, videoed drivers which she has deemed to be aggressive. The p.u. truck driver was an asshole (the bad kind). But, to me, it seems that she likes to play a dangerous game with no comprehension of just how dangerous it can be. I got the impression that she enjoys inducing road-rage in a twisted, self-righteous kind of way. Obviously, if you do that enough times you will eventually run across a real nut, like the PU truck driver and you will get some TV fame, one way or the other. She was almost giddy in the interview. I've run across these types a few times. Best to leave them in front of you rather than behind. Just my opinion.

Bones

I'd sure like to see that video!

Waxer

Florida Gator

1988, just west of Helena, Montana. Why do I know? JerryBaumchen Daytona Beach, Spring 1970 Jaywalking. But not collected on the spot. I had to ride down to the station with a carload of other miscreants. The fine was $35.00 and by some miracle that happened to be exactly how much I had in my pocket! What luck!

surfer

Yep. and fun to catch, too ...unless you're trying to get your bait down to the wreck to get some grouper.

Destiny (never heard of a stripper named "Jack". )

Amber

I think that one of the reasons we always have to get up in everyone else's business is that we are everyone else.

Tribbles

pool

hole

"extrooooord'nry!"

Hard to say. But, I think I would rather have had Ukraine turn the nukes over to us than to Russia. Still, no justification for aggression. If anything, it's the Ukrainians who have a score to settle with the Russians. Which "pundits at Fox" want to do what? I'm not being contentious ...just haven't heard anything from the punditry. (no cable or satellite TV here). meh. Yeah, it is. I skimmed through it but it's a little long. I saved the pdf to read later. Thanks. But my point is that we need to quit signing stupid shit if we have no intention of backing it up. It really trashes our credibility. Might be a good idea if incoming presidents would review these agreements and treaties to see if they are compatible with current geo-political realities and our national interests, and to see if they mesh with his foreign policy. Sitting presidents, too, should periodically review these things.

Who didn't see that coming!? You got Steppenwolf cranked up on your ipod?

Just to develop the thought a little further -- IMO, I think it is clear that the Ukraine has "become a victim of an act of aggression". But, if we interpret paragraph 4 to (partly) mean "to provide assistance to Ukraine ... if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression ...in which nuclear weapons are used", then any Security Council "assistance" could/would almost certainly have to lead to a nuclear retaliation. What other "assistance" would have any meaning after they have been nuked? That seems to be a much more dangerous interpretation.

We do NOT have a defense treaty with Ukraine. What we made in Budapest (1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances) was a memorandum of understanding that essentially promised that WE would not violate their sovereignty. It did NOT say that we would smite anyone else who did violate their sovereignty. Correct, it doesn't require us to attack a violator and I certainly wouldn't expect us to do that. I would expect us "...to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine", ...along with our applying meaningful sanctions and providing hardware to Ukraine and surrounding countries to discourage further aggression. "4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;" Maybe the "...in which nuclear weapons are used" part is attached to the bold part, maybe not. Either way, I suppose it does give the signors a weasel point if they need it. But, it wouldn't make much sense or do much good for Ukrainians if we had to wait until after they were actually nuked to ask the UNSC to "provide assistance".

Onion, Mate.

This is not what a GOP president would do. It's probably what should be done, but no president, Dem, GOP or otherwise, would do those things. These kinds of decisions are weighed and made solely on their domestic political ramifications. Treaties and promises be damned. We did not promise Georgia that we would help ensure their security in exchange for them turning a formidable deterrent (i.e., nukes inherited post USSR) over to the very country that now threatens the security of a country that did just that. We tricked the Ukraine into de-nuking, and now we're letting them twist in the wind. We have not followed through with any promise of any meaningful support since WW2. Just ask the Koreans, the Cuban counter-revs., the Vietnamese, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Libyans, the Egyptians, the Kurds, the Contras, etc., etc., etc. Anyone else (Israel, the Baltics, NATO, et al.) who is counting on the US when things get dicey better watch their backs. Disgusting, really. It pains me to realize that the last President who followed through with such a commitment was FDR's Lend-Lease in 1940 and subsequent support. Well, we did run the commies out of Grenada ...almost forgot about that one.