I'm not sure it handles baby polar bears well either.

But all the ice won't melt.

By the time all the ice gets melty, the freshwater will dilute the salinity of the oceans. Once diluted, the oceans will be be slightly less good at conveying heat from the equator to polar regions, which means the poles will get colder and start to accumulate ice.

Now this process may take a long time. Could be decades. Could be centuries. Could be longer. But it will happen.

Is it the bit where she ineptly tries to be ironic by adding on pointless bits like "how to apply mascara"? Maybe the silly double entendres about screwing etc? Or the flip flop between "I'm just a helpless woman who can't do anything" to "Fuck sake people, of course I can do this"..?

Irony is only irony when it reverses expectations. Perhaps this would be hilarious to a person who honestly believes that she is the ditsy centerfold she spends half the video making out to be. Maybe if she maintained some sort of constant narrative rather than flipping between polar opposites, it wouldn't have landed so flat for me.

That being said, it's all subjective. I don't view women as incapable, subservient morons, so attempts to play up that view as the predominant one don't really get much traction with me...

She can change a tyre and make a decent end table, but she's a shit comedian.

Forever a polar bear's dick company!

Polar Bear Joke FTW

Well, since the 'chump' is the one that got furthest of those two candidates, I don't know if a valuable lesson was learned at all. I think it's equally likely that the system will get more polarized along that axis as well - that the Republicans will double down on the crazy populism next time around, continuing the trend of Palin to Cain to Trump, and the Democrats will want to play it even safer* and more establishment because of the gaping maw of insanity on the other side.

It might even be that this is the preferred way for this to shake out in their eyes - the Democrats go on to take the White House this term and the next, and the Republicans lose the presidency but gain more ground on the local level. I'm not saying that the Republicans want to lose the presidency, but since almost every local Republican runs on the premise that they'll stand up to Washington, it doesn't hurt to be in opposition. Supporting Trump might not get you the white house but it might make you mayor. Plus, that's where the Koch money is, for now.

*On the other hand, let's not go nuts. Right now, given how the election's turned out, Clinton seems like an incredibly establishment, incredibly traditional politics, choice - but when they made the decision to run, it must have still seemed like a risky move, since no woman had ever made it all the way before. I can't imagine that anyone predicted what this race would look like (?), so maybe the 'lesson' from 2016 can't be accurately applied by either party.

The Democratic Party having control of both the executive and legislative branches does not mean Congress will go along with whatever the president says. Do you remember Obamacare at all? Was Obamacare what Obama wanted? No. It was a center left compromise to keep Democrats in the fold to vote for it. The Democratic Party still has a significant number of moderates within it.

Do you honestly think Obama got whatever he wanted his first two years in office with control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate? Absolutely not.

In fact, because of filibusters and polarization of the electorate, you can't get much of anything done anymore without control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate.

And the Shultz thing is hilarious to me. Clinton hired a high up skilled Democratic Party political operative for her campaign, and that means she's corrupt? Because Schultz favored a candidate who has always been a strong party candidate over another candidate who only caucused with the Democrats, and wasn't actually a Democrat himself? Yeah, she shouldn't have done what she did. Dennis Rodman shouldn't have done what he did to Scottie Pippen in the playoffs, too, when he was with Detroit. And who thought Rodman should have been brought in to help the Bulls? Pippen. Clinton is trying to win an election. If that's the kind of thing you consider as proof of actual corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not voting against Trump. I am voting for the most competent, experienced candidate who I think will do the best job out of this lot of candidates. She is the only candidate who is extremely qualified.

Is she perfect? Hell, no. She isn't particularly inspiring. She's not very good as a politician at persuading people to her side. She panders too much. Sometimes she plays political games too much, like with the email fiasco.


But you can do a lot worse than Clinton. You don't have to go back far to find an inept president.

I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents.

That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt.

I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core; Washington has just had a lot of time with not enough scrutiny to find the loopholes to exploit) would be better at mitigating the damage of President Trump than President Hillary. She's too insidious of an evil -- covert and connected. Trump is the polar opposite of covert.

The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary.

So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em.

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

Settle the fuck down there Social Justice Warrior...I said nothing personal to you so cool your jets. I am honestly getting tired of taking the sane, reasonable route in everything I do. I just got off facebook responding to one of those "233 blacks, 411 whites" posts that "show" cops don't kill more blacks...and I get flak for not defending cops. I come here, point out that Marah and his minions are full of shit on one point, and I get flak...fuck both polar sides.

With that said let us get into the meat of your tantrum. I never even implied, hinted, suggested or whispered that many police actions are somehow mitigated or diminished because things are better. In fact, that whole distraction you ranted on is irrelevant to the whole meaning of my post. What the point was is this--THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE FOR A SIDE TO BECOME A BETTER GROUP WHEN THE OTHER SIDE NEVER ACKOWLEGES PROGRESS. This is why Democratic and Republican lawmakers are so polarized. Why cops and blacks are so polarized. Why religions are so polarized.

I mean if we talked to our children like we talk about this, we would seem pretty fucking stupid. "Hey Timmy! I know you improved your D to a C+, but fuck you! That's not good enough you shit head. You miswell be an F student in this house!" Yeah, see how little Timmy might not come around to his dad's way of thinking? I swear, you mention some positivity and people flip the fuck out...like we are selling out to the bad cops or some stupid shit. And this is exactly what Marah's point was and is. His words were clear---NO PROGRESS. (You could argue that he meant only that there has been no progress in the thin blue line but then you would have to be a really belligerent asshole who takes words out of context to fit their meaning...)

Next, you mention all the tax dollars our police force gets...BWAHAHAAHA! Holy fuck, and I am sure the education system is overflowing with money too! Just because the numbers are large doesn't mean the actual tax dollars are significant nor does it mean the money flows to the actual police either. Now this does bring up your very serious observation that I find worrisome as well...the militarization of police...unfortunately our politicians cut sweet deals with companies that make war toys, just like in the military, and basically give away huge percentages of the police "budget." This drastically reduces the actual money police have to do their jobs while lining the politicians' pockets with contributions later.

As far as the shooting one unarmed person per week comment you made that should give YOU some perspective of how utterly stupid the side you are on is. 52 deaths a year in this manner (Say if your hyperbolic statement was actually right instead of being smartass.) 39 thousand deaths happen as a result of car accidents. Do I minimize the deaths? No. Do I put them in perspective? Of course.

I personally think that the no snitch code to crimes, whether on the street or in the force, should be a crime. Nowhere should be safe, period.

Totally agree. I mean that after digesting far too much reporting that only covers the bad apples, it leaves everyone with a completely screwed opinion. Exact same way that when all you hear about the ghetto is that someone was shot or arrested. It's selling you a polarized narrative, even if it isn't doing so by design.

I'm not going to argue, but I'd just like to point out how shockingly divided the culture has become in North America... I mean, the things your saying are SO far from what a lot of us believe it's pretty amazing we all live in the same communities. It's a bit worrying because people seem to be so passionate about their increasingly polarizing views that it's become hard to tell who's views are anchored and who's are moving.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Now on to the polar opposite of Colorado sports. The Rockies.

I don't think that Bernie will be a good president -- nowadays, with the polarization, we might be doomed forever. But I do believe in what he is saying. I just don't think he can do it in this atmosphere.

And that song. My goodness that song. It speaks right to what he truly stands for -- America is for the people. Stock footage or not, those were the faces of who he truly wants to work for.

I wish he could git'er done. I don't think it is possible.

I have to disagree.
An audience of hundreds of thousands - millions of rabid followers is quite enough. If you have over 10000 followers, you're a public figure, and you are one on purpose.
Most of those who had a 'face punch' game made using their image don't have any security. In fact, I'm fairly certain there's one where you upload any picture you want.

Some humans have a better attention span, but not many. Most people by far are NOT capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time. They may think they are, they're wrong.

She is DEFINATELY polarizing. Anyone who listens to her or knows her work either thinks she's a shining warrior for feminism, or a self centered idiot pushing feminism back decades. Very few people who know about her work have no opinion.
If she gets EVERYONE'S knickers in a twist, she's pretty polarizing.