EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 152
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
On April 29 2018 22:54 micronesia wrote: You've criticized me but not addressed my concern that I don't understand how the new system will deal with issues like the ones I've described (recognizing we can't address every possible issue in this thread, but some would be nice). I'm not saying nobody has good answers for how to do that under a new system, but I don't currently understand it. It's easy to describe this elite group of saints to address violent situations and handwave away everything else, but I still don't see what a citizen's life would look like, outside of administrative enforcement under a new system sans current police. How does the rest of the world deal with police violence? (which is probably the biggest issue with US police). Proper sane guidelines for the use of force and an independent body to investigate and enforce the police. The current threshold for lethal force for example seems to be "the officer feels threatened" which is insane and utterly unenforceable since its based on a vague feeling. @GH Military police could be an option but I wonder if they have the numbers for regional replacement of police. Google sadly did not give me an idea of their number. Outside police is imo not an option because of , again, numbers. Everyone seems to already have a shortage of police. They can't spare thousands to take over months, let alone years (Police training in the Netherlands is 3 years for example) Other then that I guess we just fundamentally disagree how much work police actually do or how crucial their existence is. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 29 2018 22:54 micronesia wrote: You've criticized me but not addressed my concern that I don't understand how the new system will deal with issues like the ones I've described (recognizing we can't address every possible issue in this thread, but some would be nice). I'm not saying nobody has good answers for how to do that under a new system, but I don't currently understand it. It's easy to describe this elite group of saints to address violent situations and handwave away everything else, but I still don't see what a citizen's life would look like, outside of administrative enforcement under a new system sans current police. I've addressed quite a bit and for some multiple times. But given you maintain the most significantly divergent (though I would argue less salient than dave's but closely related) opinion/questions + Show Spoiler + and can totally personally ban me if I don't make the effort You aren't understanding how this new system is better/more effective than the current system (though you use the phrasing 'elite group of saints') and I'm not quite understanding what you're asking with part about "a citizens life would look like...". That's where I'm at on that at the moment. If you could help verify I got the first part right and help me understand what your asking with the second I'll be happy to address your concerns. Now depending on when you do that I may not be able to immediately respond due to personal stuff, but if you want to get us to where I understand what it is your asking I'll make the effort, and either post here or in PM, whichever is preferable according to policy/personal preference. On April 29 2018 23:00 Gorsameth wrote: How does the rest of the world deal with police violence? (which is probably the biggest issue with US police). Proper sane guidelines for the use of force and an independent body to investigate and enforce the police. The current threshold for lethal force for example seems to be "the officer feels threatened" which is insane and utterly unenforceable since its based on a vague feeling. @GH Military police could be an option but I wonder if they have the numbers for regional replacement of police. Google sadly did not give me an idea of their number. Outside police is imo not an option because of , again, numbers. Everyone seems to already have a shortage of police. They can't spare thousands to take over months, let alone years (Police training in the Netherlands is 3 years for example) Other then that I guess we just fundamentally disagree how much work police actually do or how crucial their existence is. Yes to your response to micro to the degree it addressees what we perceive to be his concern. As to the numbers, we're talking a total of ~200,000 on the high side federal, local, and state (much of which part time and administrative). Spread that out over several years (you don't just suddenly fire everyone) and finding the people is strictly a matter of prioritization. IF we want to resolve the problem we can find the people. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24752 Posts
If a crime, punishable by jail time, is committed (e.g., murder, rape, theft), who will investigate these crimes? Currently, the police investigates these crimes in order to try to determine who is responsible (or federal agencies which as I understand it are not on the chopping block right now). Who will arrest these suspects once sufficient evidence convinces a judge that a warrant is appropriate? Currently, (I think) suspects that are being brought into custody either turn themselves in to the police, or are arrested by the police (in their own homes or while on the run). Who will 'capture' a suspect who needs to be tried in courts and isn't turning himself or herself in? When the witnesses refuse to show up to court, who will enforce bringing them in? (I think) Uniformed police officers will retrieve you if you refuse to report to court when ordered by a judge. If I see a shootout between ten gang members in the street outside my home, who should I call? What will the folks I call be able to do about the problem? I won't try to argue that the police handle all of these situations well currently. I do believe the police doing these tasks is better than nobody doing them, so I would want to understand who will do these tasks better, and how, before agreeing that the plan to abolish and replace the police is well founded. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 29 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote: GH it's not so much that I don't understand how the proposed new system would be better as I don't understand how it would work at all. Reading your recent posts what I've gleamed is that we will replace the police with teams of people who won't be corrupt. That isn't enough detail to satisfy me. Going back to my previous questions: If a crime, punishable by jail time, is committed (e.g., murder, rape, theft), who will investigate these crimes? Currently, the police investigates these crimes in order to try to determine who is responsible (or federal agencies which as I understand it are not on the chopping block right now). Who will arrest these suspects once sufficient evidence convinces a judge that a warrant is appropriate? Currently, (I think) suspects that are being brought into custody either turn themselves in to the police, or are arrested by the police (in their own homes or while on the run). Who will 'capture' a suspect who needs to be tried in courts and isn't turning himself or herself in? When the witnesses refuse to show up to court, who will enforce bringing them in? (I think) Uniformed police officers will retrieve you if you refuse to report to court when ordered by a judge. If I see a shootout between ten gang members in the street outside my home, who should I call? What will the folks I call be able to do about the problem? I won't try to argue that the police handle all of these situations well currently. I do believe the police doing these tasks is better than nobody doing them, so I would want to understand who will do these tasks better, and how, before agreeing that the plan to abolish and replace the police is well founded. I'll give you a more detailed answer at a later time, but I'll tell you now that we could hire a bunch of unemployed people from almost any professional sector to come in and do those things under a set of rules or 'reforms' (required training, reporting, use of force standards, and civilian oversight to name a few) that police would never accept. That's not the entirety of my position, but it should sufficiently address the concern of who could do those things if not the police and why they would be immediately better if for no other reason than we could measure their efficacy and demand changes accordingly. This is also largely asking about a very small percentage of the instances police actually deal with. Which doesn't make it invalid, but it does color the significance with which it should impede the process at large. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:... So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? History suggests a drastic uptick in crime, verging on anarchy, is a not unlikely consequence of taking police off the streets, even for a short period of time. Here is an Australian example. This is a more recent example from Brazil. I can find links to other examples if necessary. Saying that "deterrence punishments don't reduce crime" is a nearly completely unrelated statement in my view. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11716 Posts
However, with the way that you are communicating, you are losing the people that would probably agree with you. When you say "abolish the police" people don't hear "...and replace them with something that does the same things, but better, they hear "...and don't replace them at all". | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 29 2018 23:00 Gorsameth wrote: How does the rest of the world deal with police violence? (which is probably the biggest issue with US police). Proper sane guidelines for the use of force and an independent body to investigate and enforce the police. The current threshold for lethal force for example seems to be "the officer feels threatened" which is insane and utterly unenforceable since its based on a vague feeling. The issue arises, though, because the US Police can't be held to accountability, due to their political power. Anyone who tries to force through actual major legislation that would change things will be pilloried and face lockstep political opposition every step of the way. Bodycams were supposed to make things better, but I'd say at best they've allowed us to get a better view of the depth of the problem, because we're now seeing how blatantly some officers are disregarding their role as servants of the people and how rarely they're actually punished for it. While it's fine to discuss the holes in GH's plan, the plan itself arises from the simple fear that the situation is a) unfixable because of the issues I mentioned and b) very likely to keep getting worse, because what impetus is there for things getting better? Sure, GH's plan sounds a little pie in the sky... but does accountability actually sound any more realistic? I've never heard a solid plan for how that would be achieved, either, that doesn't end with 'it'll never pass/never be brought to the floor/never pushed by a DA because it would end their career'. It's the choice between 'do nothing in a situation that if not untenable today could become so tomorrow' and 'do something, even if its drastic, in the hope of a better tomorrow'. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 30 2018 00:42 Aquanim wrote: History suggests a drastic uptick in crime, verging on anarchy, is a not unlikely consequence of taking police off the streets, even for a short period of time. Here is an Australian example. This is a more recent example from Brazil. I can find links to other examples if necessary. Saying that "deterrence punishments don't reduce crime" is a nearly completely unrelated statement in my view. No it doesn't. The examples you cited are from dramatically different circumstances. We are in no way talking about suddenly and without replacement removing half or all police from the streets. The characterization portrays either a failure to understand or an intentional misconstruction of my argument. Additionally, pointing to fact that basically all of the related research indicating the idea that a lack of police increases crime is unsubstantiated outside the sentinel effect discussed earlier is certainly related to a conversation from which the starting premise is wholly dependent on an unproven and even unsupported assertion. On April 30 2018 00:46 Simberto wrote: GH, I think a big problem that you have here is the communication. What you said now sounds pretty solid to me. You think your current police force sucks, and you wish to replace them with (one or more) forces which have better oversight, are bound to better rules and so on. You also maybe do not wish to call those groups "police" because you feel that this term is tainted at this point. I don't think that what you call stuff is the most important problem, so i don't particularly care about the last point. The previous ideas sound reasonable. Maybe some of it is problematic, and the implementation is definitively complicated, but as an end goal, i don't think it is bad. Especially splitting off minor stuff like parking ticket from the police to a different group is very reasonable. I personally do not think that the best way to that goal is to fire everyone currently in the police, but through a more gradual process of reform and oversight. The main problem is that currently there is no political will to do anything whatsoever, and a lot of people don't even see a problem. However, with the way that you are communicating, you are losing the people that would probably agree with you. When you say "abolish the police" people don't hear "...and replace them with something that does the same things, but better, they hear "...and don't replace them at all". I'm not really saying anything I didn't say the first time around. People are just paying a bit closer attention to what I'm saying this time. The thing about "abolish the police" is because you guys thought you disagreed it got discussed. Now more people realize when they see that "abolish the police" sign at a protest, instead of having the reaction Wulfey or hunts might, they'll be more likely to realize "oh I actually agree with that sign" because the 'reform and incrementalism' isn't and won't work and I think 1 is too many days to go without tackling such mass abuse at the hands of state sanctioned criminals " | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:02 iamthedave wrote: If accountability is politically unfeasible then so is replacement. Even more so in fact.The issue arises, though, because the US Police can't be held to accountability, due to their political power. Anyone who tries to force through actual major legislation that would change things will be pilloried and face lockstep political opposition every step of the way. Bodycams were supposed to make things better, but I'd say at best they've allowed us to get a better view of the depth of the problem, because we're now seeing how blatantly some officers are disregarding their role as servants of the people and how rarely they're actually punished for it. While it's fine to discuss the holes in GH's plan, the plan itself arises from the simple fear that the situation is a) unfixable because of the issues I mentioned and b) very likely to keep getting worse, because what impetus is there for things getting better? Sure, GH's plan sounds a little pie in the sky... but does accountability actually sound any more realistic? I've never heard a solid plan for how that would be achieved, either, that doesn't end with 'it'll never pass/never be brought to the floor/never pushed by a DA because it would end their career'. It's the choice between 'do nothing in a situation that if not untenable today could become so tomorrow' and 'do something, even if its drastic, in the hope of a better tomorrow'. if this is your position (which may well be right, tho the slow appearance of body cams would seem to indicate otherwise) then there is simply no point in ever discussing the police, or its replacement, at all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:06 Gorsameth wrote: If accountability is politically unfeasible then so is replacement. Even more so in fact. if this is your position (which may well be right, tho the slow appearance of body cams would seem to indicate otherwise) then there is simply no point in ever discussing the police, or its replacement, at all. And in your world I'm to consign myself to the reality that my rights may be violated egregiously, my freedom, or even my life taken altogether by this immovable force+ Show Spoiler + (body cams haven't fixed anything and they just mute and turn them off if they don't want to be seen committing crimes, though sometimes they are so incompetent sometimes they mess that up) same goes for car cams as they were supposed to do the same thing, until like in the Sandra Bland tape you see them intentionally taking people off camera and lying about what happens. It's been more than a decade since major newspapers ran several headlines about how Police won't even just tell us how many people they kill, who , and under what circumstances. Wrap your mind around that for a second. More than a decade it's been well known by every major news outlet that the police won't even just tell anyone, federal or independent organization, how many people they kill. We still haven't even come close to fixing that. You've given me nothing to hope for and no ability to hold Democrats accountable, as I have to vote for them and be thankful they aren't holding police recruiting seminars at KKK rallies. And hope that maybe one day they'll get an honest body count from the police. That isn't acceptable to me, point blank period. I'd sooner die crying for revolution than consign myself to such a miserable existence. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:02 iamthedave wrote: The issue arises, though, because the US Police can't be held to accountability, due to their political power. Anyone who tries to force through actual major legislation that would change things will be pilloried and face lockstep political opposition every step of the way. Bodycams were supposed to make things better, but I'd say at best they've allowed us to get a better view of the depth of the problem, because we're now seeing how blatantly some officers are disregarding their role as servants of the people and how rarely they're actually punished for it. While it's fine to discuss the holes in GH's plan, the plan itself arises from the simple fear that the situation is a) unfixable because of the issues I mentioned and b) very likely to keep getting worse, because what impetus is there for things getting better? Sure, GH's plan sounds a little pie in the sky... but does accountability actually sound any more realistic? I've never heard a solid plan for how that would be achieved, either, that doesn't end with 'it'll never pass/never be brought to the floor/never pushed by a DA because it would end their career'. It's the choice between 'do nothing in a situation that if not untenable today could become so tomorrow' and 'do something, even if its drastic, in the hope of a better tomorrow'. What we need to do is get to the root of the problem. In conjunction with bodycams and transparency, we need to ensure that the "rules of engagement" are changed and that the right people are being hired. If the military has rules regarding when they can engage an enemy with their weapons, the police should have similar, if not more strict, rules. In too many instances, the mere presumption of a "threat" or presence of a weapon leads to a shooting. If you feel so threatened and are so cowardly that someone pulling up their pants or reaching for a phone leads to you shooting them, you don't belong on the force. I understand that legitimate threats exist, but often the police have weapons drawn and focused on the suspect. You have ample time to assess a situation before making a decision. I served in the U.S. Army, and I can tell you that I met people from every state, of every race, and from every walk of life. I've met people who were timid, aggressive, crazy, or just regular folks. Not a single one of them demonstrated an inability to follow the rules put forth. It is baffling to me, as the son of a career police officer who never fired a weapon at someone, that so many officers are so quick to resort to force. This is independent of the instances of improper uses of force that are not deadly. I'm not entirely sure if it is frustration, fear, or racism that leads to the abuse of suspects who are handcuffed or otherwise not an imminent threat. That's beyond my scope of knowledge. I hate using the word "coward" in the same post as law enforcement, but that is just what it appears to be. You have to understand that there is inherent risk in upholding the law while preserving the rights and lives of suspects. It's a fine line to walk, but there are many capable of doing it every day. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote: ...We are in no way talking about suddenly and without replacement removing half or all police from the streets. The characterization portrays either a failure to understand or an intentional misconstruction of my argument. As far as I can tell your conversation with Gorsameth on the previous page or two was based on this characterisation, so I'm a bit irritated by your insinuation of "intentional misconstruction". That being said, if you in fact intend for some replacement to fulfill the sentinel effect then there's nothing much else to discuss about that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote: Welcome to reality, life isn't fair. Your fucked with little hope because birth roulette placed you in America.And in your world I'm to consign myself to the reality that my rights may be violated egregiously, my freedom, or even my life taken altogether by this immovable force+ Show Spoiler + (body cams haven't fixed anything and they just mute and turn them off if they don't want to be seen committing crimes, though sometimes they are so incompetent sometimes they mess that up) same goes for car cams as they were supposed to do the same thing, until like in the Sandra Bland tape you see them intentionally taking people off camera and lying about what happens. It's been more than a decade since major newspapers ran several headlines about how Police won't even just tell us how many people they kill, who , and under what circumstances. Wrap your mind around that for a second. More than a decade it's been well known by every major news outlet that the police won't even just tell anyone, federal or independent organization, how many people they kill. We still haven't even come close to fixing that. You've given me nothing to hope for and no ability to hold Democrats accountable, as I have to vote for them and be thankful they aren't holding police recruiting seminars at KKK rallies. And hope that maybe one day they'll get an honest body count from the police. That isn't acceptable to me, point blank period. I'd sooner die crying for revolution than consign myself to such a miserable existence. Have you considered immigrating to a better country? I mean, it sounds stupid and trolling but there are a ton of things in life that you have no realistic influence over. To enact real change you need a critical mass of public opinion and enough will behind it to force political change. America does not have that right now for police reform (or a ton of other stuff) so yes, there is nothing you can do about it but hope that the tide eventually changes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't campaign for such reform but for god sake keep it realistic. Your complaining that no one is in for your fairy tale that has 0 chance of ever happening instead of spending your energy trying for actual changes that come in small steps. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:21 Aquanim wrote: As far as I can tell your conversation with Gorsameth on the previous page or two was based on this characterisation, so I'm a bit irritated by your insinuation of "intentional misconstruction". If you read it then you should see I said the same thing about it to him and best I can tell conceded the point eventually. It's frequent where someone will mischaracterize someones argument and then someone will assume it's accurate and build their post on that assumption regardless of whether it's been retracted or disposed of otherwise. Happens to all of us sometimes, no need to let it bother you now that you know. On April 30 2018 01:24 Gorsameth wrote: Welcome to reality, life isn't fair. Your fucked with little hope because birth roulette placed you in America. Have you considered immigrating to a better country? I mean, it sounds stupid and trolling but there are a ton of things in life that you have no realistic influence over. To enact real change you need a critical mass of public opinion and enough will behind it to force political change. America does not have that right now for police reform (or a ton of other stuff) so yes, there is nothing you can do about it but hope that the tide eventually changes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't campaign for such reform but for god sake keep it realistic. Your complaining that no one is in for your fairy tale that has 0 chance of ever happening instead of spending your energy trying for actual changes that come in small steps. Tell me how this realistic campaign for reform is different and better than what I'm advocating specifically? I'd point out what I'm doing is exactly (at least one way) how you turn the tide, and those opposing me show how to secure the status quo. Also if any of the Euro's want to sponsor me to get the fuck out of here I'd certainly consider it. I may have a claim at German citizenship too if that helps. But then my compassion would still leave me engaged here as often as any other euro and I'd still be concerned for my comrades across the pond and the abuse they suffer from police and the inability and lack of desire (look at Democratic run cities) to enact any significant and effective reforms so I'd probably still discuss it as much as you guys complain about me discussing it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
And no GH, I don't concede the point as I pointed out we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the impact of police existing on society and that there is no point in continuing that line of discussion further. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22051 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote: it has a chance of happening in slow and gradual steps (as frustrating as that is), see body cams starting to pop up, even if those measures are still doing little because they get turned off. Its a the tiniest of small improvements.If you read it then you should see I said the same thing about it to him and best I can tell conceded the point eventually. It's frequent where someone will mischaracterize someones argument and then someone will assume it's accurate and build their post on that assumption regardless of whether it's been retracted or disposed of otherwise. Happens to all of us sometimes, no need to let it bother you now that you know. Tell me how this realistic campaign for reform is different and better than what I'm advocating specifically? Which is infinity more then shouting 'Abolish the police" until your voice gives out will ever do. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 30 2018 01:30 Gorsameth wrote: As I (and others) have repeatedly said. Using the word Abolish brings certain expectations and connotations with it which instantly turn people off your argument when instead you mean large scale reforms. And no GH, I don't concede the point as I pointed out we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the impact of police existing on society and that there is no point in continuing that line of discussion further. I don't mean large scale reforms, I mean the systematic deconstruction of the police from top to bottom. Abolish leaves no doubt that these people won't be keeping their jobs. Again it doesn't turn people off of my argument, it exposes they are in opposition of my argument despite their protestations otherwise. Okay, I guess you don't concede it, but you have your opinion, and I've cited decades of the best available research we have (which is already heavily biased in favor of the police). Based on that I'd fully agree further exploration of that line of discussion is futile. On April 30 2018 01:34 Gorsameth wrote: it has a chance of happening in slow and gradual steps (as frustrating as that is), see body cams starting to pop up, even if those measures are still doing little because they get turned off. Its a the tiniest of small improvements. Which is infinity more then shouting 'Abolish the police" until your voice gives out will ever do. Is it? By what measure is it an improvement? Regardless, I prefer this "take your oppression and pray we lighten your load when convenient" approach to the issue to the more deceptive "I might agree with you if you said it like I want you to". | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
The problem isn't reform v abolish. It is more about working towards building motivation amd will to actually do it, which there isn't much atm. Persuasion and rallying people to your cauae to get things done seems to be more important then the method of changing the police. Because GH is right. The police have a lot of leverage amd power because they are embedded within our system like a tick and the lack of oversight has led to large and disturbing behavior that developed with the unchecked power. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23580 Posts
On April 30 2018 02:17 Slaughter wrote: The whole abolish vs reform debate seems like to me that if you had the political will to actually go with an abolish plan you would have already long had enough to do the effective "real" reform that GH deems impossible to do. The problem isn't reform v abolish. It is more about working towards building motivation amd will to actually do it, which there isn't much atm. Persuasion and rallying people to your cauae to get things done seems to be more important then the method of changing the police. Because GH is right. The police have a lot of leverage amd power because they are embedded within our system like a tick and the lack of oversight has led to large and disturbing behavior that developed with the unchecked power. We've gone pretty far if we've arrived at "Abolishing the police is a better idea, except we would have the political will for reform before abolition." To which I would say the issue is team reform (whose reforms haven't been mentioned yet) is depending on politicians disregarding their capitalist owners and destroying the enforcement arm of their property regime for no clear benefit to themselves and likely to their peril. Abolishing the police isn't expecting politicians or corporate mega donors to agree with us at any point. We're going to force police, against their will when necessary, to stop existing. All that takes is people acknowledging that police aren't what they think they are, don't do what they think they do, and need to be prevented from taking more lives like they were a murderous gang roaming the countryside raping, stealing, killing, and so on, because as an institution they are. If someone wants to advocate for reform, tell me how it happens, what the reforms are, who is going to make it happen, and what they waiting for? That seems like a bare minimum of matching what I've already presented for abolishing the police. Otherwise don't try to use 'reform and incrementalism' as a euphemism for effectively doing nothing while people are abused and killed. EDIT: Probably going to have to address this whole notion that the police have been corrupted rather than them always being a state sanctioned gang intended to enforce and secure property rights for a wealthy ownership class. I guess we can start on that by anyone who supports the idea that police have been corrupted through lack of oversight to help us understand when they think that happened and how they think police came about in this country. EDIT 2: Seriously though that WHCD monologue was soo good, watch the whole thing because the corporate media are cutting or manipulating a lot of the best parts and the pity for Sarah Huckabee is too damn much roflmao | ||
| ||
