Police Officers

[Japan]

whoa bro that's a bold statement to make bush knocked down the towers.

[Kassel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

whoa bro that's a bold statement to make bush knocked down the towers.

So is this one sentence or two ? What exactly are you trying to articulate here? I understand that English is obviously not your first language but can you please show is some pity?

[guineapig]

To clarify, you stated that:

because side #1 (your side? the "good guys"?, white people?)

support "law and order"

that side #2 (liberals? what do you call them these days... colored folk?) must automatically oppose it.

Is that really the best you could come up with when I brought up factions discrediting each other? This is something that a 5th grader would have come up with as an answer to an essay question.

This is why you aren't even worth dealing with. It is such an ignorant statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Is that all that "side #1" stands for?
Is a conservative that breaks the law automatically a liberal? Because that seems to be what you are trying to define.
Do you live in a cave by chance?

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Reading comprehension fail. I believe your original statement was an opinion.
You can try to twist my words any way you want but you basically likened liberals to anarchists which is fucking retarded.

Won't even bother quoting the rest of your BS, there's just no point.

Regardless of what my political affiliation is, and you are still wrong, you are a completely polarized headcase who is just making himself look a fool. Keep up the good fight.

Your post #78 quotes me as saying:
"The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated."
and then you respond to that quote with the following 2 sentences:
"Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T."

By saying "you JUST described" you make it plain that you mean the immediately previous quote. Which means you think my previous quote is 100% "slogans and opinions". One of the "slogans and opinions" I state is that law and order keeps a society running. Therefore you think it is merely an opinion that law and order keeps a society running.

If you intended those 2 sentences to refer to a different quote of mine, you should have placed it near that quote. If you intended those 2 sentences to refer to every quote of mine you should have chosen your words more carefully. Even then, you are still stating that it is merely my opinion that law and order keeps a society running since the phrase "to a T" means that the fit is perfect; everything I say is either a slogan or an opinion.

+++

No where have I said that liberals are anarchists. This thread is about how some liberals hate the police and do not trust them. If this sounds like anarchism, that is not my fault. You are the one who made the connection between those who believe that and anarchists.

+++

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A bigger problem is that authoritarian pussy ass kissers believe that anyone in a position of authority is to be automatically trusted, and said persons are always right, and always act responsibly. I mean, that person wouldn't be in that position if Baby Jeebus hadn't miracled their asses into it, now would they?

Nowhere have I or anyone else said authorities should automatically be trusted. Show me where this has been said. Of course there is a need for oversight. Absolutely. But it is ridiculous to claim (as many in this thread have) that cops as a group are a problem, and strongly imply they have no redeeming features.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To clarify, you stated that:

because side #1 (your side? the "good guys"?, white people?)

support "law and order"

that side #2 (liberals? what do you call them these days... colored folk?) must automatically oppose it.

Is that really the best you could come up with when I brought up factions discrediting each other? This is something that a 5th grader would have come up with as an answer to an essay question.

This is why you aren't even worth dealing with. It is such an ignorant statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Is that all that "side #1" stands for?
Is a conservative that breaks the law automatically a liberal? Because that seems to be what you are trying to define.
Do you live in a cave by chance?

I am not trying to prove liberals are against law and order by saying conservatives are for it. I am assuming it is true that liberals are against law and order, and then looking for the reason behind that fact. Groups defining themselves in opposition to other groups is a long-accepted fact of life. I can assume it is true that liberals oppose law and order because that fact underpins this entire thread.
To quote the OP:
"...dooming them to a life on society's underbelly for exercising control over their bodies." An obvious reference to abortion, a bedrock liberal issue.

"You are the enforcer the Christian majority mafia needs to impose its moral "authority..." Christians forcing their moral view on others is another common liberal meme.

Stickygreenbud:
"Also maybe a sensitivity course for each and every cop." You can't get much more liberal than recommending a faggoty sensitivity course.

"Ya i may get shit for this but hey i don't want some ex-military who's having post traumatic stress disorder or issues with his manhood protecting me or even arresting me." Worried about soldiers coming home and going on a killing spree sounds a lot like memos Obama's appointees in the justice department have sent out. Dick size innuendo is another go-to argument typical of liberals.

Murphy:
"You'll only hear the word "liberals" out of the mouth of a white man." Nonsensical, but hates on white males. No attempt to explain wtf he means when called on it. Obviously liberal.

Bodeanicus:
"So frightened. The big bad black men are coming to fuck your mom. Run now!" Playing the race card when no one on the other side has even brought up race = liberal.


I do not address any other aspects of the liberal/ conservative spectrum because they are not an issue in this debate.



I'll give you guys some hints for the future. Understand what my argument is. Then understand what your argument is. Then choose facts which tend to refute my argument, and facts which bolster your argument. Do not use use facts that are not relevant to my argument, do not use facts that are not relevant to your argument. Weave those facts together in a narrative that leads the reader to think your argument makes more sense than mine. I know this sounds like something you'd have to say to a kindergardner, but you guys need it. Your debate skills are horrible.

[purist]

^ Hey, knuckle-dragging retard, nobody gives a shit about your opinion.

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^ Hey, knuckle-dragging retard, nobody gives a shit about your opinion.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't have responded to my opinion. It is OK, I realize you lack the intellectual chops to hang with the big dogs but your ego won't let you admit it to anyone. Just fade quietly away and no one will think the worse of you.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love how his world is filled with these 2 types of individuals and nothing else.
You really shouldn't try to lump everyone into these 2 categories of yours because that simply isn't the way the world works.

Yet another typically liberal post. You decry lumping people into simplified groups, in a post one of your compatriots started to lump all police into 1 simplified group. And you probably don't even see the hypocrisy.

I talk about 2 ends of a political spectrum and nothing else because that is the topic. Why would I discuss the libertarian opinion on heroin, or the Jewish view of polygamy, in a thread about the liberal stance of those who hate the police? This thread, and the point I'm trying to make, have nothing to do with those things. Again, please read my debate hints. A synopsis: Understand what the topic is, and what you want to say about that topic; pick facts that relate to that. The topic on this thread is the claim that police are violently out of control. Your facts do not relate to that.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your typical catholic is anti-abortion but also against the death penalty. So where would you lump this person in your black and white world?

Since this thread is about where on the political spectrum they fall in regards to law enforcement, neither of those facts are relevant. Of course peoples' beliefs are far more complex than black/ white. To quote G.E.P. Box, "all models are wrong, but some are useful." Trying to make a statement about 300+ million people on an individual basis is far beyond our brains' ability to comprehend, so we use simplified models such as the political spectrum to make it comprehensible. Of course there are inaccuracies as with all models, the question is whether it is useful. The way in which many of you can have your reactions, beliefs and arguments predicted by this model show that it is indeed useful. The OPs simplified model that assumes all cops are bad is not a useful model as it is too far from the truth.

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The evidence of police corruption, especially in police districts located at large population centers, indicates that police corruption is systemic and may be the rule rather than the exception. The LAPD and NYPD taken together have a laundry list of proven cases of systemic corruption that prove this.

Take, for instance, the LAPD Rampart scandal, where not only were 70 officers implicated for corruption, but evidence was discovered that showed the chief of police at LAPD was obstructing justice and tampering with evidence. The head of the corruption task force investigating the Rampart scandal resigned and sued the department with just that claim.

As far as waiting for cops to come save me? What a joke. Cops cannot stop crime beyond deterrence. Consider response times of 15+ minutes even in populated areas. That's more than enough time for you to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. The only person that can reliably stop a crime from being committed on your person is you. The cops will only show up in time to clean up the scene and maintain social order, not to save your life or property.

This is actually a fairly decent post. My main problem with it is that you claim a few acts of corruption indicate systemic problems. I would like to see some facts and figures to prove this. 70 officers out of over 10,000 doesn't prove anything.

On your 3rd paragraph: Preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by Japan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course the laws have to change; they allowed the widespread corruption and inefficiency we currently see throughout our justice system to take hold. That our system is weak even on paper doesn't change that the pigs we've got now are corrupted. Purge them.

Only a few % of Americans will ever spend a night in jail. Your changes to the law will not affect them much if at all. It will have very little effect on the criminal class that is the problem. If you truly want to make our system efficient you need to deal with the problem I outlined above, that only a few % of Americans account for a vast majority of our court cases and prison incarceration. Even if every cop was squeaky clean and motivated this problem would still exist. If anything it would increase the arrest rate of over 17 per criminal, costing our catch-and-release system even more money. Of course the extra time in jail would be time they would not be spending committing crimes.

If you got yelled at once by a cop and you went home to cry in the bathroom and tried to make yourself believe that you were 'this close' to saying something brave, get over it.

[unclechad2]

if you or your family is a cop go fuck each other and die your what is ruining america you piece of authoratarian shit

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5yWaE8tTlsc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5yWaE8tTlsc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Japan]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you got yelled at once by a cop and you went home to cry in the bathroom and tried to make yourself believe that you were 'this close' to saying something brave, get over it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Being "this close" to saying something 'brave' is being "this close" to becoming incarcerated for 'assaulting a police officer', tased, or a corpse. That's an idiot's bravado.

No, I have never thought I was a bad enough dude to talk shit to a pig, because I know he will smash me into pieces without hesitation and I'll have no recourse whatsoever.

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride, or the ass-kicking when the cameras aren't rolling, or the starving in the county jail from Friday til Monday, or the potentially lethal taser that gets employed with impunity on grandmas who pose no threat to anyone. No, I will not just get over the fact that some fat fucking high school graduate who sold his soul to the gestapo can and will do all of these things to me on a whim completely legally, depending on how his day is going.

All they've got to be able to do is charge you with something. You don't have to be convicted.

[Estolcles]

I like cops.

They keep the ghetto down the street under better control than it would be if they weren't there.

[purist]

I LOVE YEW JESUSSSSSS CHRISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTT JESUS CHRIST I LOVE YOU YES I DO

way 2 intellectual 4 me