Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
YouTube - New Jersey police officer pounds man on tape CNN com
I blame much of the climate that emboldens these "thugs with badges" on Republicans, the Bush administration and the right wing law & order freaks that hold NO regard for people's rights, JUST their punishment...
Police departments need to screen applicants to eliminate hiring these sanctioned criminals that abuse their power...
Abraham Lincoln said it best: Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
You'd blame a Republican for shitting your own pants.
wait a minuteWasn't the Rodney King beating during the Clinton administration? LOL--
Yeah right.
I'm sure that Bush II personally ordered those cops to beat somebody.
After all, we all know that cops never beat people before Bush II came into office, right?
As we all know, thanks to the iditoic partisan trolls on this board, every POTUS, rgardless of party affiliation, is responsible for every event that happens during their administration.
Yesterday for example, Obama burnt my toast.
Well, actually I happened to burn it, but it was on O's watch, so I'm putting the onus on him.
Cute,
Handsome, actually, but do go on
but if you had 1/2 a brain,
I'm burdened with two halves,actually, but do go on
you'd realize that authoritarians like Bush and Cheney create an atmosphere with rhetoric and policy that leads to dehumanizing things like abuse and torture...
Did I suggest otherwise? No.
There has been a shift to the right in America since 1980...there are always consequences
A shift to the right? True
... I'm sure those nuances are beyond your comprehension...
What nuances? Do you actually know what that word means? Apparently not, based on how you just attempted to use it.
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer
Silly boy.
To attempt to blame BUSH or the REPUBLICANS for police brutality is absurd.
As long as there are police, there will be police brutality.
That fact has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the human nature of people who choose to be police.
Yeah right.
I'm sure that Bush II personally ordered those cops to beat somebody.
After all, we all know that cops never beat people before Bush II came into office, right?
As we all know, thanks to the iditoic partisan trolls on this board, every POTUS, rgardless of party affiliation, is responsible for every event that happens during their administration.
Yesterday for example, Obama burnt my toast.
Well, actually I happened to burn it, but it was on O's watch, so I'm putting the onus on him.
Handsome, actually, but do go on
I'm burdened with two halves,actually, but do go on
Did I suggest otherwise? No.
A shift to the right? True
What nuances? Do you actually know what that word means? Apparently not, based on how you just attempted to use it.
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer
Silly boy.
To attempt to blame BUSH or the REPUBLICANS for police brutality is absurd.
As long as there are police, there will be police brutality.
That fact has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the human nature of people who choose to be police.
Hey editec...maybe if you did a more thorough job of "read and comprehend" you could eliminate so much embarrassment on your part...
HERE is what I said...
I blame much of the climate that emboldens these "thugs with badges" on Republicans, the Bush administration and the right wing law & order freaks that hold NO regard for people's rights, JUST their punishment...
Police departments need to screen applicants to eliminate hiring these sanctioned criminals that abuse their power...
Abraham Lincoln said it best: Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Then later I said: you'd realize that authoritarians like Bush and Cheney create an atmosphere with rhetoric and policy that leads to dehumanizing things like abuse and torture...
To which YOU replied: Did I suggest otherwise? No.
Can't have it BOTH ways...
Handsome, actually, but do go on
I'm burdened with two halves,actually, but do go on
Did I suggest otherwise? No.
A shift to the right? True
What nuances? Do you actually know what that word means? Apparently not, based on how you just attempted to use it.
Silly boy.
To attempt to blame BUSH or the REPUBLICANS for police brutality is absurd.
As long as there are police, there will be police brutality.
That fact has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the human nature of people who choose to be police.
Hey editec...maybe if you did a more thorough job of "read and comprehend" you could eliminate so much embarrassment on your part...
Oh, I'm not embarrassed, BF.
HERE is what I said...
I blame much of the climate that emboldens these "thugs with badges" on Republicans, the Bush administration and the right wing law & order freaks that hold NO regard for people's rights, JUST their punishment...
Yeah I read it.
I still disagree.
I see no significant difference in police thuggery under the Republican V democratic regimes.
Police departments need to screen applicants to eliminate hiring these sanctioned criminals that abuse their power...
Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Of course the only real way you'll ever get cops who aren't into that power they're given is to appoint people who DON"T WANT THAT POWER to begin with.
Again I'll tell you.
Police brutality is a human nature failing.
Abraham Lincoln said it best: Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Well...yeah!
Then later I said: you'd realize that authoritarians like Bush and Cheney create an atmosphere with rhetoric and policy that leads to dehumanizing things like abuse and torture...
And that is certainly true....except that isn't why local police beat up people.
To which YOU replied: Did I suggest otherwise? No.
Can't have it BOTH ways...
ACtually since you're confusing FEDERAL police abuse with ALL police abuse, and I am not, I CAN have it both ways.
Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Of course the only real way you'll ever get cops who aren't into that power they're given is to appoint people who DON"T WANT THAT POWER to begin with.
Again I'll tell you.
Police brutality is a human nature failing.
ACtually since you're confusing FEDERAL police abuse with ALL police abuse, and I am not, I CAN have it both ways.
Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Of course the only real way you'll ever get cops who aren't into that power they're given is to appoint people who DON"T WANT THAT POWER to begin with.
Again I'll tell you.
Police brutality is a human nature failing.
ACtually since you're confusing FEDERAL police abuse with ALL police abuse, and I am not, I CAN have it both ways.
Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't believe you were initially making that distinction...you're just trying to cover your ass ...IMO
Then perhaps you need to reread my original post.
I faulted the theory that police brutality was the result of the Bush II administration.
I continue to fault that premise and charge that such an inane theory is pure partisan nonsense.
Here's an example of police brutality during the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention.
Will the creator of this thread blame BUSH II and Cheyney for that, too?
Maybe there's SOME hope for better initial screening and needed terminations...
It would help, I suppose.
But in the final analysis, I think that those in power want cops who aren't afraid to bend the laws when it suits them.
Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Of course the only real way you'll ever get cops who aren't into that power they're given is to appoint people who DON"T WANT THAT POWER to begin with.
Again I'll tell you.
Police brutality is a human nature failing.
ACtually since you're confusing FEDERAL police abuse with ALL police abuse, and I am not, I CAN have it both ways.
Then perhaps you need to reread my original post.
I faulted the theory that police brutality was the result of the Bush II administration.
I continue to fault that premise and charge that such an inane theory is pure partisan nonsense.
Here's an example of police brutality during the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention.
Will the creator of this thread blame BUSH II and Cheyney for that, too?
Maybe there's SOME hope for better initial screening and needed terminations...
It would help, I suppose.
But in the final analysis, I think that those in power want cops who aren't afraid to bend the laws when it suits them.
Here's part of an article posted on Lew Rockwell.com...it is a libertarian, classic liberal take written by a preacher...
Conservatives and the "Justice" System
Why have so many conservatives cheered on the legal persecution of Martha Stewart? Its partly because most do not understand the federal system and what Stewart was even being charged with and partly because they just simply support an unfair legal system. Its part of their image of being "tough on crime" when in reality they are tough on freedom. While many conservatives are (allegedly) suspicious of government power, they are more than willing to support it unconditionally when it comes to matters of law. Thus the victim of police brutality always had it coming, the big corporate CEO on charges is always guilty, and the police, the feds and the prosecutors are always right.
Conservatives love the law. They rigidly adhere to it and see any deviation from the law as worthy of a beheading. Therefore, they are much more likely than leftists to support rigid maximum fines and penalties for even the slightest of transgressions. It is conservatives who support the outrageous fines and penalties for drug offenders. It is conservatives who pushed for the unfair and unjust "federal sentencing guidelines" (which make sure that small time federal offenders are punished in disproportionate amounts to the severity of the crimes they actually or supposedly committed) and it is conservatives who support many Police State measures such as the Patriot Act.
In the eyes of most conservatives, Martha broke the law. Cased closed. No questions asked. But those of us with a more libertarian disposition go even further than that. We want to know whether or not the law was just to begin with. Also, how do the enforcers of the law go about nabbing their target? Conservatives, by and large, are not willing to challenge whether or not the law is morally just. Nor do they care to spend a lot of time looking at some of the corrupt and deceitful practices of the police, feds, judges and prosecutors. In the beloved Police State of the mainstream Right, the bad guys are always the accused and the good guys are always the State. The State can do no wrong.
Each time a person stands accused, the conservative asks in a stone-faced and serious manner, "Is he guilty?" They instinctively believe that whenever the government brings an indictment or a charge, they must be correct. In their eyes a man or woman is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. Nor do they really want to consider that even if the accused person is guilty of what he or she is being accused of that the law itself may be unjust. Thats because they believe law and the system is never unjust. Power hungry cops and federal prosecutors along with phony legal offenses apparently are our friend and help keep us safe.
You also wont find a whole lot of conservative sympathy for those who have been wrongly imprisoned or wrongly put to death by the State. These "law and order" types will just rationalize this problem away, either by denying that such cases exist, or by simply asserting some innocent people will have to suffer for the greater good. How this is conducive to the cause of freedom and liberty is questionable to say the least.
On matters of civil liberties, it is the Left that is more reliable than the Right (except on matters of religious liberties, where the Left wants to purge religion from society). In the eyes of the Right, only crazed hippies are opposed to the Patriot Act. Conservatives, who seem to love militarism, use war as an excuse to suck up all kinds of personal liberties. Besides, they reason, sometimes when you are fighting a war, you have to surrender some of your freedom. If you dont agree, then you dont care about national security, you are ignorant, and you can just leave the country. This brings me to my final point, the conservative love for war.
Authoritarian Conservatism by Bill Barnwell
I do not doubt for a moment that most self proclaiming conservatives are more supportive of harsh laws and authoriarian brutality than most liberals.
My objection was to the political partisan nonsense originally stated in this thread.
My point is that the so-called liberals in power are no less willing to employ the cops than the so called conservatives in power.
Yes, there is clearly an authoritarian mindset.
Yes, that manifests most obviously in self proclaiming conservatives (we see this every damned day here, don't we?).
But liberal government or conservative, local cops beat people.
They don't take their queues from the POTUS, they are responsing to their own personal need to impose their atuhtority on their victims.
I cannot believe that what I am saying about cops and political parties is really all that fucking confusing.
I do not doubt for a moment that most self proclaiming conservatives are more supportive of harsh laws and authoriarian brutality than most liberals.
My objection was to the political partisan nonsense originally stated in this thread.
My point is that the so-called liberals in power are no less willing to employ the cops than the so called conservatives in power.
Yes, there is clearly an authoritarian mindset.
Yes, that manifests most obviously in self proclaiming conservatives (we see this every damned day here, don't we?).
But liberal government or conservative, local cops beat people.
They don't take their queues from the POTUS, they are responsing to their own personal need to impose their atuhtority on their victims.
I cannot believe that what I am saying about cops and political parties is really all that fucking confusing.
editec... I completely understand the points you make, and I agree with them.
But at the same token, I can't believe you don't understand that society's norms and values can be influenced, distorted and twisted over a period of time by leaders...in particular, authoritarian leaders like a Bush and Cheney that resort to highly incendiary rhetoric, a with us or against us mindset and a litmus test of patriotism.
SAure I understand that point. Shit rolls downhill.
But we're talking COPS here and the history is plain enough for all to see.
Cops have always been like that and trying to pin the blame for some incident of police brutality that happened yestterday on BUSH II or Cheyney is simply mindless fucking partisant nhonsense.
Authoritarian followers look to their authoritarian leaders for guidance and sanction. Authoritarian followers would be highly attracted to joining a police force just as an arson would be attracted to becoming a fireman...
True...nothing to do with our POTUSs past or present, though.
I don't claim Bush told the officer to beat that man, I DO claim Bush helped create a society where that beating is more acceptable instead of less acceptable...
Local cops do NOT take their queues from the POTUS.
Not yet, at least.
Now if you were talking about the mayor of that city, I would go along with you.
But to try to make the connection between the assinine POTUS Bush II and some assinine cops?
That's just absurd and worse, it discredits those of us who actually DO make connections between what the POTUS does or say and his minions.
Yes, this is not fare. please read one thing,
'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds, nought and six, result misery."
Chicago has always been democrat, and has the worst history of corruption with regards to the police force (and everything else).
BTW, "wandering around looking to buy drugs" can also be considered a form of loitering or soliciting, both of which are historically illegal in most parts of most cities.
