Scruit

From now on I'll say; "Helping you was preferable to hearing you whine about it. Barely."

I've been saying "No Problem" as long as I can remember. At least 25 years. Problem?

I got mirror extenders that move my mirrors out 2" both sides. I added blind spot mirrors too. I have no problem with rearward visibility. http://www.twistedthrottle.com/sw-motech-mirror-wideners-suzuki-v-strom-dl650-12-triumph-tiger-explorer-1200-12

Just trying to establish your rules when when people should stop, considering it irks you so.

In your case yes, stop and let the procession past. I bet once those cars pulled out and wound up in the procession they suddenly went "Oh, shit!" But if the procession is travelling in a direction where you slow them down or break them up then who cares of you slow down or stop? I'm not goingt o touch my collar either...

In the UK the ceremonial guards at Buckingham Palace etc are active duty soldiers on a short-term assignment. My brother stood guard there for a while between tours in Iraq and Northern Ireland.

As long as we understand that your ire is directed at the umbrella thing, not the "Obama" thing.

Shhh... This is Obama-bashing thread. Nobody cares about your facts or logic. (I love Clinton's face in the background, like "My umbrella is AWESOME!!"

Every over recent president has picture out there of someone else holding their umbrella for them.

Are you thinking nascars? Roof flaps etc. What would stop a dirt / spring car from flipping? Are you saying that dairt-late-model cannot flip? Or that it is rare? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKaMO9bupE Here is that car on all 4 wheels, for once: http://www.iracing.com/inracingnews/other/dirt-late-model-dreams

The rose garden is a staple of the White House especially when greeting dignitaries. If they didn't use it then people would criticize that too. Maybe rain was not forecasted? I don't know. All I know is that of all the things that you can criticize about Obama, this is the one that makes people look like they are being petty and grasping desperately at straws looking for any political points regardless of how irrelevant.

I don't see the hypocrisy here. He never said soldiers shouldn't have guns. He also maintains that guns shouldn't be banned, just that he would prefer that people chose not to own them.

Like what, at that moment?

I only ask because one of the chief complaints I've heard about those Marines holding the umbrella is the one holding for Obama had his right hand occupied and he couldn't use his weapon. If they're not armed then the Marine's ability to use his non-existent weapon is therefore not really a huge concern. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of pictures of of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and other presidents having umbrellas held for them by what appear to be SS agents - at which point the SS agent is momentarily unable to draw his weapon (that we all agree he has). So, given that, doesn't it make sense that the unarmed person concentrate on the umbrella and the armed person keep his arms free? Ideally the umbrella would be held by another person, such as a butler/servant/assistant etc. But then people would complain about the money spent on that. Or maybe they don't use umbrellas at all and conclude the speech looking like a pair of half-drowned cats. Then people would complain that the foreign dignitary was mistreated Ok, what about they hold their own umbrellas? Then people would find something to complain about with that. http://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm

I guess elbows are the answer to everything then, as far as you're concerned...

I'd prefer a radar-activated clarymore that blows up rear-ending car.

Don't have to stop just because they are driving past - just don't split them up even if your light turns green. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.451

Nobody answered if the Marines were armed. Anyone know?

Looks like Obama is just passing the umbrella from one hand to the other because it won't fit through the doorway...

My deck is about 3' from the floor so it doesn't make sense to try and store stuff under the entire length, but I can make the lattice panels hinged and store things under the deck close to the edge.

And I have seen several people drop off a relative and then visit them regularly. My One lady I knew went to the library and got a new book every few days, and went to sit with her mother in the nursing home and read her a story, every single day during her lunch hour. It didn't matter that her mother was so senile that she couldn't respond to the story, all that we knew was that her mother smiled the whole time Yvonne was there. Don't let your personal experience leave you jaded. Some places are good, some are bad. Some schools are good and parents are involved in their kids' education, some are bad and the parents expect the teachers to raise their kids. Some cops are good, some are bad. Make individual judgement calls based upon the specific cases.

Something like this: Man: "That mean police officer shot and killed my puppy when he broke into my house without a warrant" - Internet fury, calling for the officer's head on a spike - Small % of people decide to wait for the full story before cracking out the torches and pitchforks. - Small % of people say; "If the police did it, there must have been a reason and the dog must have deserved it" The the real story comes out and it's one of three things: The officer acted properly and in good faith: "An investigation showed that the officer was in pursuit of a man who robbed a little old lady, ran into his house with the officer hot on his tail, and the man sicced his pitbull on the officer, who had to shoot." -- Some folks will absorb the new information and change their position. -- Some folks who are rabidly anti-police will say the cop should have let the guy get away once he ran into his house, or should have let the dog bite them or something equally ridiculous -- Some folks will continue sniffing holster Or: The officer made controversial judgement calls: "An investigation showed that the man was being chased for a misdemeanor violation that did not happen within the officer's sight and therefore the officer didn't have the power to effect an immediate arrest but many witnesses reported the crime to the officer. The man jogged away ignoring the officer (which is neither a walk (let him go) or a run (stop him)). The man arrived home minutes before the officer and the officer should probably have sought a warrant, but the officer saw drug paraphernalia while looking into the window, so he effected an entry that is likely to be considered Ok. The dog attacked the police officer as it was trained to protect the house, but the attack was so vicious that the officer nearly died from it and only saved his own live at the last second." -- Some folks will absorb the new information and change their position, either supporting or condemning the officer based upon individual factors that they feel are most relevant, such whether a warrant was actually required for entry into the house. -- Some folks who are rabidly anti-police will still call for his head on a spike. -- Some folks will continue sniffing holster Or: The officer was clearly acting in bad faith and abusing his badge in the most heinous manner: "An investigation showed that the man being chased had done nothing wrong, and the officer was stalking the man's wife and had a restraining order against him for molesting her in the past. The man was chased into his house because the officer was trying to murder him but his dog valiantly defended his owner with his dying breath, whispering 'avenge me" to his puppies and his life ebbed away into the carpet". -- Some folks will absorb the new information and change their position, condemning the officer. -- Some folks who are rabidly anti-police will say ; "SEE? his is proof that every other police officer is corrupt also." -- Some folks will continue sniffing holster. So, there's the Anarchists, then moderates and the Holster Huffers. Which are you? And that his how the internetz works.

All presidents have that too. It makes it very easy to see who is too blinded by their political prejudice to make rational decisions on a case-by-case basis - They are militant apologists for their own party and unapologetic militants against the other.