>> ^jmd:

He never played diablo 2 (fail), and he played diablo 3 in single player and on normal mode.
This is a review of the EZ mode blizz puts in for the little kids. Play some inferno big boy. Oh yea and your loot table is not shared in multi play. No pants to split here.


Here's a thought, how about making a game that's fun right from the start, rather than forcing people through as others have put it "a 10 hour slog" first. It's like, even after paying 60 bucks I still have to prove I'm worthy enough to start the actual game by playing 10 hours of BS, I'd say that the criticism is valid.

He never played diablo 2 (fail), and he played diablo 3 in single player and on normal mode.

This is a review of the EZ mode blizz puts in for the little kids. Play some inferno big boy. Oh yea and your loot table is not shared in multi play. No pants to split here.

>> ^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...

"Time Warner has called, and they want us back on the couch, not producing, not sharing, just consuming."

Brilliant quote at the end there.

Nice selective quoting.

"The classical (Roman) writers affirm that they offered on great occasions human sacrifices; as for success in war or for relief from dangerous diseases. Cæsar has given a detailed account of the manner in which this was done. "They have images of immense size, the limbs of which are framed with twisted twigs and filled with living persons. These being set on fire, those within are encompassed by the flames." Many attempts have been made by Celtic writers to shake the testimony of the Roman historians to this fact, but without success."

We have no reason to doubt the testimony of their contemporaries. And if you want more evidence, how about national geographic:

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

It's actually far worse than I thought. Far from a quaint little holiday where people mourned the dead, it was sick pagan bloodbath.

What's clear is that you're more interested in a convenient truth;; you said it yourself, you skim over the evidence in apathy, and just want to believe what you want. Doesn't change the facts though; Halloween celebrates an evil day where a bunch of savages worshipped demons, sacrificed human beings and apparently ate their flesh. I'm sorry, but there is nothing there for Christians to celebrate. Pat Robertson is 100 percent correct.

>> ^pho3n1x:
Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.
Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.
Try harder.
--
Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.
--
Religion is like a penis.
It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.

Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.

Try harder.

--

Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.

--

Religion is like a penis.

It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.



>> ^shinyblurry:

Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire

No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.

I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.

By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/sacrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/sacrificemainpage.htm

Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?

Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

Thanks... would seem others do not share our high brow taste in humour

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*quality

A few thoughts:

1. Personal Revelation: I'm not sure why "God Told Me" is accorded a privileged, absolute position (by many, not sure if by sb) in terms of an information source. Surely a universe that includes supernatural beings interested in human behavior could also include a trickster-God capable of whispering things to someone or creating literally any kind of mental experience or situation (you know, for giggles)? Now, this could be claimed as a counterpoint to almost anything, and it's not really evidence for anything. It's not a good reason to not believe the whispering or something. However, doesn't it preclude absolute surety here? I mean, sure you could say it's more likely the whispering would be from the more powerful, "right" God - but, again, can you be absolutely sure? And if you can say "OK, I'm not absolutely sure - but I'm pretty dang sure" I think that's healthy. There's nothing wrong with picking what you feel is the vastly more likely explanation for an experience, I'm just objecting to the way some attribute absolute value here (again, not sure if this applies to specific participants of this discussion, but would value their thoughts here).

2. Punishment: I don't believe there's any "virtue" to justice or punishment. I think there's a practical societal requirement for deterrent to certain behaviors, and I think jail is a horrible, currently necessary evil (jail is marginally better than some other options, I think, because it mechanically prevents further offenses during incarceration as well as being a deterrent - and ideally it would provide education for reform, etc.. though I don't have much faith that that's happening currently). I don't understand the value of "justice" as an ideal or why it's seen as a virtue independent of these practical concerns. If people have free will and some are good and some are bad... well, whatever. As long as we can keep the bad people from hurting the good people (which, again, doesn't require any notion of justice), I don't see why we'd need to go about punishing anyone.

3. The End of Days: I will point out that shinyblurry's vision of how the whole final judgement scenario goes down is not shared by all of Christianity. There's significant variation between Christian denominations (though many of those, I assume, sb would not consider actual Christians - like Catholics or the previously mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses).

I think some of the confusion in this thread revolves around differing visions of judgement, differing ideas about what "Hell" constitutes, and the nature of God's omnipotence (which I think is a very big question). SB's posts here are essentially Theodicy, and that's a muddy job when these premises aren't well defined. I have some general ideas on SBs positions on these ideas, but I think it might clarify the discussion a bit if we knew his positions more clearly on things like:

1. Who will be in Hell, and does Hell include actual pain/torment (or is the torment more like, say, regret)?
2. What is the nature of God's omnipotence? Does it extend to control/creation of logic? What is his general relation to virtue/right?
3. What is the nature of God's omniscience, and what is your general conception of free will?

To be clear, I'm not trying to ask gotcha questions, or suggesting these questions don't have answers. I'm just asking what your answers are, as I think it'll clarify the discussion.

"And I don’t have much of a formal education – which is good, because it means I can actually read and write. But it also means I don’t have a great deal of what you might call actual knowledge.

However, if you pressed me, I’d say the purpose of life is joy in the present moment, and anyone who tells you different is a lying conniving asshole."

- from his website.

Why not share that moment with others?

I gotta agree with the guys, Kyle. Just because you don't like the premise of a movie doesn't mean it's shit. You are free to have your opinions, just understand that they are not shared by everyone else.

Plus, there were only a few of shits in Mr Popper's Penguins. For some reason his character turned into Ace Ventura at three or four random moments. Otherwise it was a cute kid's movie. With some potty humor. Ok, maybe it was shit.

>> ^marbles:

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning.

objective

>> ^marbles:

You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting.

The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.

Please re-read my original post (watch out for the quotes) for three arguments for self-contradiction.
3 ≠ 0

>> ^marbles:

Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise.

Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?

>> ^marbles:

Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.


Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from. Please rephrase your question so that it makes grammatical sense.

>> ^marbles:

Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.


What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?

>> ^marbles:

No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.


You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?

>> ^marbles:

False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.


But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.

Pro-tip: Consider the consequences of your arguments before you make them.

>> ^marbles:

False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

Sorry if you felt offended.

But I didn't call you ignorant. Sorry that I didn't recognize what you posted as a "sincere philosophical inquiry." Unfortunately, I do think you are naive.

However, please note that I just sent this PM to someone about the "debate" on the comment stream:

"There is a place for the passionate -- they provide a service to our complacent society, in keeping the middle on their toes." (Then I said something that was a little rude, so I am not sharing that with you. I don't want to offend you.)

However, I didn't engage because I disagree with the factual basis of your point of view.

I agree with you that police abuses must be dealt with. I don't know what else you want from me. What do you want me to say? What do you want me to believe?

Convince me that there is some basis for moving forward on this topic, and I'll re-engage.

Promise.

(I normally send this kind of thing privately, but since you have spanked me publicly ("I thought you had better manners"), I shall "apologize" publicly -- not much of an apology is it?)

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Imply that I'm an idiot (for agreeing with that guy's statement)
Call me naive & ignorant.
Then ignore my sincere philosophical inquiry because you disagree with the wording?

I thought you had better manners, bareboard. = /

Couldn't you just address the substance of my comment instead of nitpicking at the syntax?

Why make your opinion known in a community such as VideoSift - of all places, if you're not willing to discuss the substance of that opinion?

>> ^bareboards2:

I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.

>> ^bareboards2:

I don't believe our government is blatantly corrupt. I think that you are naive in thinking that, and show a lack of understanding of history and the definition of corrupt.
I don't agree with your 15% figure of "good cops.

...so the rest of the comment is ignored.
I'm out of here.