Also, a short note here...and then I am done. I find that any statement I make should be able to switch around nouns and if it sounds horrible with another noun in its place, you probably don't a statement worth shit.

For example, "Blacks are thugs." Replace that with, "Police are thugs." The statement itself is stupid, regardless of who it is applied too. Your statement about seeing what the police really do...like saying we see what blacks really do...is worthless....mostly because it claims them all into one group of equal do-evil.

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.

There are a few things that do make me laugh at the ignorance though. He hasn't seen any postitive...at all...since the civil rights era...? Okay, little sensationalized...considering *Dash cams *More prosecutions *more black officers (I read one recount how in the 80s the force was so different that only white men could arrest white men in the city, that was probably the funniest example...) *more policies and training against racial bias... Ergo the problem. Mahar doesn't care what the police really do, only the perception of the television plugging points.

Finally! Their Social Justice warriorism has taken an episode break. This was "great".

Not to poke or prod, but then what would you do to stabilize the country? His fear only worked if he killed harmless civilians, otherwise it wouldn't work at all. It's an all or nothing there.

The democratic government, hardly a corrupt government as the media would have you believe, is actually worse by far now than when Saddam was in power. (Yeah, that's hard to believe...but with the mass terror attacks, beheadings, raping of the Yazidi, unpredictable poverty, and the crime by non-terrorists, it is...) So with wholehearted empathy, I ask again. What would you do to help this even-worse situation?

I would say this is the natural order...even in socialistic countries this is how government operates.

Upvoted this because it is how people should respond. However, Samantha is thin-skinned...

I do lol, and laughed. But hated this video. They made Douglass seem like some angry black thug instead of the powerful and articulate narrator he was. And basically Jefferson just gave up. They should have had Douglass rap first, say only, "You owned slaves," then Nice Peter could have come out and said, "Who won? Who's next?"

And I am glad people finally see this since the Bruce Banner vs Bruce Jenner came out. Finally....

Except nothing you said just now was correct. If Jefferson would have gotten his way there would have been no slavery. The fact that he said as much during a time when that could get your entire family brutally murdered is kinda a benefit to his character.

Oh, but he owned slaves, so he must have supported it. What stupid people believe this crap? You know who else owned slaves? Schindler did. He saved as many as he could and after the war? He was hunted like a dog. And while Jefferson did not "save" blacks, in a way he certainly did. His dictums were to treat those in his care with care and respect.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support the confederate mantras, or that those who supported slavery were just doing what the times dictated, but Jefferson fought it in his own way. However, it was a lost cause and so he only could use what little power he had.

SJW unite...bet the next one is worse...oh wait, it was. Lol.

The premise was great. Two transformers with issues. However, the execution was horrible. Hulk said nothing about Jenner's manslaughter (Perhaps he could have thrown a car at people and it bounced over them, then he makes a pun about not killing people.) Nor did he go after Jenner's dick. It seems the SJWs really hit hard. Then again the Douglass one was hardcore SJW too.

So...basically what you admire about him he must then throw off in order for you to be happy with him? I am not sure you understand what morals and values are. As Jon Stewart once said of the Republicans, morals and values are not morals and values if you change them when the situation changes! Those are whims and fancies!

No, you make one fatal error. You are comparing Clinton supporters with Bernie supporters. That is incredibly incorrect and it makes me shudder. You should compare Clinton to Trump supporters---ie., the entire republican party has sided with him, minus a few who will vote third party. Clinton supporters are exactly like that. Bandwagon, that's me! Not to degrade them but put a D in their mouths and they are happy.

On the other hand, Bernie supporters have more integrity and are tired of the funnel-effect of the lesser of two evils bullshit whereby more evil comes to our voting booths.

So yeah, maybe 1% of Clinton supporters will be mad and vote elsewhere (Like Jill) but what, 25% of Sanders will? Yeah...not quite the same.

"All you gay Muslims who will be condemned by even the moderates as sinful abominations that deserve death at least." Yes, tell it like it is Samantha...oh wait, you didn't. Sad part is Trump has supported the LBGT cause more than Hilary ever could...

Much like the homophobic Baptist preacher, but at least Christianity has come fairly reasonable (not too reasonable mind you) way towards letting individuals be individuals...even if they dislike their lifestyle.

Okay, Libertarians stand for:

End to the endless wars: This is much more important than any social policies they might hate. Those programs will fail if we cannot control this bullshit, and then what? Austerity.

Gay rights: (Liberal view.) Not just marriage, but all gay rights. Get the government out of the marriage / contracts etc. and give full rights to people who are different.

Abortion: (Small government, get out of a woman's right to choose. Liberal/conservative point of view.)

Gun rights: Let the States limit gun rights. What works for California might not work in New York. Not my style, but less than conservatives want, more than liberals want. Honestly we have a shit policy out there now. With terrorism building, getting rid of all handguns is seeming ominous, as they will have access to guns despite bans. They have that support in droves, unlike the average criminal would. However, conservatives want ASSAULT rifles for everyone, which is stupid and dangerous. The paradigm has changed. Liberals taking guns from average people (who are most often responsible) and yet not preventing assault rifles from terrorists hands.

Libertarians won't solve the problem but at least their view that states, not an open-access ordered by the Federal Government, would put more restrictions than most conservatives would, and still offer handguns since times have changed.

War on drugs: Failure, stop punishing people, limit laws that predominantly punish minorities, and reduce prison population.

Where the fuck have liberals gone that they no longer support a party that supports their positions so much? Oh social programs...would suffer. Get over it. Programs will suffer from every party. And conservatives shouldn't complain either. For fuck sake people, change with the times. Stop viewing this party as the party of 1920....