Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Creed Bratton]

And just to illustrate that point better, shall the governments collapse, you I will sell to the slavers. Maybe I'll score a few rifle rounds that way.

Something tells me that you can't wait for the apocalypse.

[Docfaustino]

Look, neoliberalism and income inequality are growing international trends, and frankly it scares the sh*t out of me. But I don't subscribe to the revleft theory that the best solution is anarchism. Especially in America, a country with no blueprint so to speak who is to say we witness a seamless and happy transition? Who's to say people will stop exploiting others because of a shakeup in the status quo? Perhaps you could walk me through the step by step transition process.

 

I was with Occupy Wallstreet every step of the way and I'm not comfortable writing off change for the better. Even if it was a failure, one day I like to think people will become conscious of the flaws in the system, and change it. Not erase all of it, good and bad.

[Dingdongs]

 

I was with Occupy Wallstreet every step of the way and I'm not comfortable writing off change for the better. Even if it was a failure, one day I like to think people will become conscious of the flaws in the system, and change it. Not erase all of it, good and bad.

Regular middle class Americans don't have the time to complain about it. Basically, the people who do have the time to complain are the occupy wall street people. People who don't work and suck on the government teet and then bitch about how their income is inequal. That was the image of Occupy Wall Street. And if you want to say that's because of how the media portrayed them, think again. Don't just take my word for it, really google up images of the protestors/signage/paraphenalia they distributed, but as a personal take I went to Zuccoti Park in NYC to check it out and the people there were not middle class American workers of all colors/creeds, white collar/blue collar, complaining of the fact that Middle class income hasn't increased adjusted for inflation since the 90s. It was a bunch of crazy, radical left wingers who just don't speak for the middle class and frankly made the issue worse. Some guy was telling us that we needed to have an anarchical system, then we said "well what happens when one of you gets all the resources and takes control" and he had no answer. The panphlets given out were all for Communist type propaganda... it was just BS.

 

Occupy wall street failed because they didn't speak for the middle class. The middle class in America doesn't want the "1%" to not become a thing, they either want to be part of the 1% themselves or they want that 1% to be more like 25%. When you hear people complain about how the taxes on the top income earners in the US have been the lowest in the history of the income tax, that gets drowned out as socialism because the people doing the talking really are socialists. The tax code is such a f*cking disaster and nobody from the middle class says a word because they're all at work or taking care of their kids. 39.5% for the top income earners, great. But that doesn't make a f*cking difference when the family making a combined income of 275k a year is paying the same bracket as some hedge fund manager making 100 million a year; the latter of whom probably has enough deducations to be paying the same dollar amount as the family.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Irviding

[Art:Vandelay]

 

I was with Occupy Wallstreet every step of the way and I'm not comfortable writing off change for the better. Even if it was a failure, one day I like to think people will become conscious of the flaws in the system, and change it. Not erase all of it, good and bad.

 

Regular middle class Americans don't have the time to complain about it. Basically, the people who do have the time to complain are the occupy wall street people. People who don't work and suck on the government teet and then bitch about how their income is inequal. That was the image of Occupy Wall Street. And if you want to say that's because of how the media portrayed them, think again. Don't just take my word for it, really google up images of the protestors/signage/paraphenalia they distributed, but as a personal take I went to Zuccoti Park in NYC to check it out and the people there were not middle class American workers of all colors/creeds, white collar/blue collar, complaining of the fact that Middle class income hasn't increased adjusted for inflation since the 90s. It was a bunch of crazy, radical left wingers who just don't speak for the middle class and frankly made the issue worse. Some guy was telling us that we needed to have an anarchical system, then we said "well what happens when one of you gets all the resources and takes control" and he had no answer. The panphlets given out were all for Communist type propaganda... it was just BS.

 

Occupy wall street failed because they didn't speak for the middle class. The middle class in America doesn't want the "1%" to not become a thing, they either want to be part of the 1% themselves or they want that 1% to be more like 25%. When you hear people complain about how the taxes on the top income earners in the US have been the lowest in the history of the income tax, that gets drowned out as socialism because the people doing the talking really are socialists. The tax code is such a f*cking disaster and nobody from the middle class says a word because they're all at work or taking care of their kids. 39.5% for the top income earners, great. But that doesn't make a f*cking difference when the family making a combined income of 275k a year is paying the same bracket as some hedge fund manager making 100 million a year; the latter of whom probably has enough deducations to be paying the same dollar amount as the family.

Great post. The stupid loopholes the the wealth use to get out paying taxes in ridiculous, my dad would always tell me, "there's nothing wrong with trying to lower how much you owe the government." His point being that if the loopholes are there you should use them. Get rid of the current tax code, remove the loopholes and problem solved.

[Clem Fandango]

Occupy wall street failed because they didn't speak for the middle class

Speaking for the middle class means babbling about Obama's birth certificate and shrieking at women getting abortions. Also lol @ "the middle class doesn't have time for politics" they had time to turn the radical right into the political establishment with the tea party.

 

So tell me then, what's your solution? Just vote Capitalism into something better? With a binary choice of candidates who each get more right wing every four years? Yeah, I'm sure the 1% are totally willing to become the 25%. Just gotta circulate some petitions!

In practice, a band of outlaws will establish their own authority in that village within a year. Then you are on the road towards feudalism. These should be fun times.

When has this ever happened?

[K^2]

When has this ever happened?

It's happening right now in about half of the 3rd world. Primarily in Africa. It's also what ISIL have been doing. These are just recent cases. Establishment of most kingdoms in Europe during middle ages went about the same route. Pretty much every feudal system ever has started like this. So a better question is when has this not happened, and I honestly don't know of a single society that hasn't gone through this. If you'd like to dig up an example, go for it.

 

Seriously, spend some time actually learning about anthropology, history, and political science. But no, I guess that's too much work, and if you were cut out for research, you'd actually have an education. It's much easier to work minimum wage and assert that it's all government's fault on the internet.

[Dingdongs]

Speaking for the middle class means babbling about Obama's birth certificate and shrieking at women getting abortions. Also lol @ "the middle class doesn't have time for politics" they had time to turn the radical right into the political establishment with the tea party.

 

So tell me then, what's your solution? Just vote Capitalism into something better? With a binary choice of candidates who each get more right wing every four years? Yeah, I'm sure the 1% are totally willing to become the 25%. Just gotta circulate some petitions!

 

What does Obama's birth certificate have to do with who is speaking for the middle class? And I would beg to differ. Some Middle class voters who aren't too wise may go for the Tea Party backed candidates, but I would say it is mostly elderly voters and stay at home moms listening to Megyn Kelly all day because she's a hot 40 year old. In fact if you look at the elections, 2010 and 2014 when the Tea Party backed people won (actually 2014 saw a resurgence of more mainstream Republicans) it was years of extremely low voter participation. I think the 2014 election was 34% of registered voters turned up to the polls to cast vote. iwbth847 If we had in the US voting on weekends/voting over two days (some have proposed Sunday - Tuesday voting) I would bet you would see the real middle class vote. But people working their ass off waking up at 6 am, taking care of the kids and getting ready to go work (no one really has off on election day), leaving the house at 7:15 to drop the kid's at school then just making it on time for work at 8 am, then working until 5:30, getting home at 6:15 taking care of kids, preparing dinner, helping with homework, working at home, by the time they finish that it's 10 PM and time to go bed, and polls have already closed at 9 PM (actually they close at 7/8 in some places).

 

I don't think there is any inclination that they aren't. Maybe the .01 percent doesn't want there to be a 25%, but if you actually took the time to get to know people other than those who reinforce your viewpoints you'd find that those in the "1%" are not all that bad. They aren't all people who inherit their money through low estate taxes and got rich through taking advantage of poor people. Some of them work their asses of. If you think most middle class Americans A) support the tea party in large numbers and B) would rather see the system overhauled and there be forced redistribution of assets rather than working hard on their own and getting rich or at least upper middle class themselves, you just don't understand America too well.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Irviding

[Docfaustino]

 

 

I was with Occupy Wallstreet every step of the way and I'm not comfortable writing off change for the better. Even if it was a failure, one day I like to think people will become conscious of the flaws in the system, and change it. Not erase all of it, good and bad.

Regular middle class Americans don't have the time to complain about it. Basically, the people who do have the time to complain are the occupy wall street people. People who don't work and suck on the government teet and then bitch about how their income is inequal. That was the image of Occupy Wall Street. And if you want to say that's because of how the media portrayed them, think again. Don't just take my word for it, really google up images of the protestors/signage/paraphenalia they distributed, but as a personal take I went to Zuccoti Park in NYC to check it out and the people there were not middle class American workers of all colors/creeds, white collar/blue collar, complaining of the fact that Middle class income hasn't increased adjusted for inflation since the 90s. It was a bunch of crazy, radical left wingers who just don't speak for the middle class and frankly made the issue worse. Some guy was telling us that we needed to have an anarchical system, then we said "well what happens when one of you gets all the resources and takes control" and he had no answer. The panphlets given out were all for Communist type propaganda... it was just BS.

 

Occupy wall street failed because they didn't speak for the middle class. The middle class in America doesn't want the "1%" to not become a thing, they either want to be part of the 1% themselves or they want that 1% to be more like 25%. When you hear people complain about how the taxes on the top income earners in the US have been the lowest in the history of the income tax, that gets drowned out as socialism because the people doing the talking really are socialists. The tax code is such a f*cking disaster and nobody from the middle class says a word because they're all at work or taking care of their kids. 39.5% for the top income earners, great. But that doesn't make a f*cking difference when the family making a combined income of 275k a year is paying the same bracket as some hedge fund manager making 100 million a year; the latter of whom probably has enough deducations to be paying the same dollar amount as the family.

 

 

Occupy Wall Street wasn't just about erasing a social class, although all the anger really might have made it seem like that was the primary message. The important part about the demonstrations was the push to take punitive action against the cartel of bankers and gov officials who caused the recession that put everybody in the hole in the first place. As long as financial crisis-inducing bankers and government officials walk free OWS will have a leg to stand on. I will admit its message was incredibly muddled but that's because there was no leader. It was a movement of people from all walks of life, and sometimes the message gets muddled.

 

Let's also not forget how OWS ties in to this very thread. The police show of force was incredibly unnerving. No matter what you think about it, protesting is constitutionally protected and not only where there mass arrests (debatably justified) there were mass beatings, macings, and I do recall a hit and run by an officer on a civilian. And of course, Cecily McMillan going to jail for having punching an officer who grabbed her boob from behind. She went to Rikers man. Yes, I think the failure of OWS has hurt us today.

 

I fully understand that taxes could be easier for EVERYONE and that the tax code is a mess and not always fair to businesses but I also understand that the post-recession wealth has landed squarely in the hands of the wealthiest Americans. Proving that unfortunately, in our class system the 1% is seeing most of the benefits and for a historical less amount of work, just as the lower class is doing more work for a historically low sum of money (minimum wage must be adjusted for inflation). And attacking welfare doesn't do a damn thing. More money is funneled to Walmart and places that don't need it and are then labeled as job creators just because they donate to political campaigns than is funneled to welfare for lower class citizens. Even some Republicans agree with me. I have a good Forbes article from a Libertarian on the bizarre blind spot that those who cry entitlement have when the entitled are multinational corporations. Anyway...let me extrapolate the "good" from OWS.

 

-Tougher wallstreet regulation

-Indicting culpable bankers rather than bailing them out

-Tackling income inequality

-Cutting back on corporate welfare

-Some explanation for why there are more houses than people yet we treat our homeless like dirt (subtle class warfare)

-Raising the minimum wage

[Acehilm]

Edit: nevermind.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Coat.

[a20characterusername]

It's hilarious because this whole situation is f*cking blown way out of proportion. Seriously, why are people still continuing to try and validate their point? It doesn't matter anymore, it's done. What happened was a tragic event, nonetheless, but the death of this teen should not be a reason to threaten an entire police force, pillage their own community and cause nation havoc.

No, it's not 'done'. sh*t like this has been happening here with increasing frequency and decreasing accountability for literally f*cking decades.

[Finn 7 five 11]

I don't disagree with you. I am not defending Pantaleo's actions. I have said many times he was wrong. But it isn't murder nor is it manslaughter; it's a violation of Garner's civil rights.

So if he is wrong, that means he acted in a way he shouldn't have. He was being negligent of the correct way to handle the situation, yes?

 

And because of this Negligence the man was strangled to death, he told the police he couldn't breathe, and was already on the ground limp and not struggling.

 

The officer negligently killed a man. That is manslaughter, because manslaughter is unintentionally killing through grossly obvious negligence.

 

 

If a drunk driver kills someone, it's considered negligence and they are generally charged with manslaughter, I realize the scenario is different, but the common elements of negligence and death remain.

[make total destroy]

 

When has this ever happened?

It's happening right now in about half of the 3rd world. Primarily in Africa. It's also what ISIL have been doing. These are just recent cases. Establishment of most kingdoms in Europe during middle ages went about the same route. Pretty much every feudal system ever has started like this. So a better question is when has this not happened, and I honestly don't know of a single society that hasn't gone through this. If you'd like to dig up an example, go for it.

 

 

 

What has any of this to do with anarchism?

 

 

 

Seriously, spend some time actually learning about anthropology, history, and political science. But no, I guess that's too much work, and if you were cut out for research, you'd actually have an education.

 

 

That's rich.

[golf wang]

All I have to say is that the "Justice System" in this country is a joke. RIP Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Amadou Diallo, Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, and many others who never got justice for their deaths.

Edited December 8, 2014 by golf wang

[K^2]

What has any of this to do with anarchism?

Lack of strong state. Id est, the very condition you are trying to create. I know you like to imagine that you are inventing some new state, but truth is, we've gotten through anarchism right around the time agricultural societies started out. And a few times afterwards as various empires collapsed. Anarchism leads to feudalism. Feudalism to monarchy. Monarchy to Rechtsstaat. And then every once in a while a bunch of idiots get together and throw it back to the anarchy stage. That is, back to the square one.

 

And note, feudalism, for all its horrors, does end up being a step up for societies. I'd say, "Think about that," but I recognize futility of it.

 

That's rich.

Wow, what an argument. But again, since you lack any qualification to talk about the topic, that's not at all surprising.

 

All you do is drop into topics like this, make absurd claims, and when you are called out on it, respond with "witty" one-liners. And I'm sure, inside your head, you are still thinking that you are right, that you are winning the argument, and that you have some idea of what you are talking about. Every incompetent idiot always does. That's the problem with incompetent people. They don't know they are incompetent.

[Ai®a©ob®a]

 

And just to illustrate that point better, shall the governments collapse, you I will sell to the slavers. Maybe I'll score a few rifle rounds that way.

Something tells me that you can't wait for the apocalypse.

 

is it time to start making tinfoil hats and stocking up on supplies?

[make total destroy]

 

What has any of this to do with anarchism?

Lack of strong state. Id est, the very condition you are trying to create.

Again, that's a very simplistic understanding of anarchism. Anarchists reject the state entirely, as it is little more than a committee to negotiate the affairs of the property-owning class. As such, anarchists are too opposed to private property, wage labor, and class society as a whole.

 

 

I know you like to imagine that you are inventing some new state, but truth is, we've gotten through anarchism right around the time agricultural societies started out.

Well, we wouldn't be inventing a new state by definition. But if you could point me out to where anarchism existed before the development of agriculture--which is quite odd, because anarchism as a philosophy and social movement would not come into existence for several thousand years--I would greatly appreciate it

 

And a few times afterwards as various empires collapsed. Anarchism leads to feudalism. Feudalism to monarchy. Monarchy to Rechtsstaat. And then every once in a while a bunch of idiots get together and throw it back to the anarchy stage. That is, back to the square one.

 

We're not talking about the same thing here.

 

 

 

Wow, what an argument. But again, since you lack any qualification to talk about the topic, that's not at all surprising.

 

All you do is drop into topics like this, make absurd claims, and when you are called out on it, respond with "witty" one-liners. And I'm sure, inside your head, you are still thinking that you are right, that you are winning the argument, and that you have some idea of what you are talking about. Every incompetent idiot always does. That's the problem with incompetent people. They don't know they are incompetent.

 

lol what am I qualified for? I can't bring people coffee, and now I'm not qualified to talk about anarchism, despite the fact that I'm, you know, an anarchist. Funny, that. I mean, you've just demonstrated that you don't actually know what anarchism is, and that you're literally working with a dictionary definition of anarchy. That is some straight-up layman sh*t.

 

And then you have the nerve to tell Melchoir--an anthropology student, of all people--to study anthropology. C'mon.

.

[GTA_stu]

Take it to the general political discussion thread you filthy commies.

[Mr.Nedich]

 

Again, that's a very simplistic understanding of anarchism. Anarchists reject the state entirely, as it is little more than a committee to negotiate the affairs of the property-owning class. As such, anarchists are too opposed to private property, wage labor, and class society as a whole.

I can't tell if you're mad or delusional, or maybe both. Anarchists have this dream of 'rejecting the state' as if it will bring about this societal utopia when all it'd bring is a chaotic society. Contrary to what delusions of grandeur the internet pamphlet you read told you, humans are creatures of structure. You tear down one state and when anarchy in all its terror reigns a powerful figure will rise up an build a new state and forge order and control once more. All anarchists are are either delusional college aged people promised that Anarchy will lead them all over the rainbow or people who just want to be able to rape, kill and steal without fear of the law bringing the hammer down on them. An anarchic society is a lawless one, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand how Anarchy works. A lawless society means there's no social standard of what is acceptable and what isn't and would set humanity back into a Darwinian state and I guarantee people like you who think Anarchy is the best thing ever would be the first lot of people to get raped or shot over a can of beans because you didn't realise just how low people will sink when there's no fear of repercussions.

[make total destroy]

 

I can't tell if you're mad or delusional, or maybe both. Anarchists have this dream of 'rejecting the state' as if it will bring about this societal utopia when all it'd bring is a chaotic society. Contrary to what delusions of grandeur the internet pamphlet you read told you, humans are creatures of structure. You tear down one state and when anarchy in all its terror reigns a powerful figure will rise up an build a new state and forge order and control once more. All anarchists are are either delusional college aged people promised that Anarchy will lead them all over the rainbow or people who just want to be able to rape, kill and steal without fear of the law bringing the hammer down on them. An anarchic society is a lawless one, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand how Anarchy works. A lawless society means there's no social standard of what is acceptable and what isn't and would set humanity back into a Darwinian state and I guarantee people like you who think Anarchy is the best thing ever would be the first lot of people to get raped or shot over a can of beans because you didn't realise just how low people will sink when there's no fear of repercussions.

150+ years of theory just destroyed right there. wowzers.

 

you so got me there. brb registering as democrat.

Edited December 8, 2014 by make total destroy

[gbrown100]

Can we get back OT before another mod locks this?

[K^2]

Again, that's a very simplistic understanding of anarchism. Anarchists reject the state entirely, as it is little more than a committee to negotiate the affairs of the property-owning class. As such, anarchists are too opposed to private property, wage labor, and class society as a whole.

I would consider "no state" an extreme example of weak state. As in, all the sh*t that happens in weak states is guaranteed to happen. And again, no state, no property, no wages, been there. It's nomadic and early agricultural societies. You are describing one verbatim.

 

 

Well, we wouldn't be inventing a new state by definition. But if you could point me out to where anarchism existed before the development of agriculture--which is quite odd, because anarchism as a philosophy and social movement would not come into existence for several thousand years--I would greatly appreciate it

And there was no gravity prior to 1687. That's a fact.

 

 

We're not talking about the same thing here.

No, you don't think you are talking about the same thing, because you haven't bothered to learn a bit of history. Otherwise, you'd learn that people have talked about the same thing you're talking about for hundreds of years, and every time it went exactly that way. Forgive my bias, but I'm most familiar with the way it went down in Russia. We had a perfectly good Monarchy transitioning to Constitutional Monarchy. Then anarchists came over saying, "Hey, why transition to constitutional monarchy, when we can do anarchy?" And they were saying what you have been saying word for word. And they helped to overthrow the Czar, and there was no more power. Except, Bolsheviks decided, buger that, they want power. And there was nobody in Russia to stop them. So they took over, established their own little feudal state and executed most of the Anarchists that helped them get power in the first place. As they all deserved, naturally.

 

But hey, I'm sure you're way smarter than all these people. What, with all your background in political thought and philosophy. And whatever it is you do that people are actually willing to pay you for. That thing. I'm sure it gives you an edge.

 

 

lol what am I qualified for? I can't bring people coffee, and now I'm not qualified to talk about anarchism, despite the fact that I'm, you know, an anarchist.

Logic just isn't one of the things you ever do, is it?

 

 

And then you have the nerve to tell Melchoir--an anthropology student, of all people--to study anthropology. C'mon.

Who doesn't know how transition to feudal states happens? Well, I hope he's better at other branches of anthropology. Maybe he knows all there is to know about clay pots, or something. But it's a huge disappointment, that is. I would have lived happier if you haven't told me this, I'll be honest.

[Audiophile]

Only anarchists I have ever met are, generally, weed-smoking hippies who leech off the government - while protesting about it - and shirk off every responsibility they have ever had to stick it to the man/their family/insert whatever here.

 

But, well, I guess that's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

If you think anarchism will actually work:

 

 

That is all. K^2 has taken care of everything else.

[dice]

Only anarchists I have ever met are, generally, weed-smoking hippies who leech off the government - while protesting about it - and shirk off every responsibility they have ever had to stick it to the man/their family/insert whatever here.

The only muslims I ever saw were also terrorists

[Mr. House]

Forgive my bias, but I'm most familiar with the way it went down in Russia. We had a perfectly good Monarchy transitioning to Constitutional Monarchy.

I can forgive your bias, but not your laughable suggestion that Russia had a 'perfectly good monarchy', nor the notion that the Bolsheviks were Anarchists, or the apparent claim that they fell from space and obliterated the monarchy in a vacuum rather than the fact that the monarchy imploded due to incompetence, a bankrupt county, a crippling war and mass dissent. You know, like just about every history book says. Or maybe my burger flipping brain just couldn't correctly grasp them learnins.

 

Oh by the way, the February revolution removed the Monarchy, which was a liberal coup.

 

Thirdly, Stalin can hardly be called a Bolshevik.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Mr. House

[Dingdongs]

 

Forgive my bias, but I'm most familiar with the way it went down in Russia. We had a perfectly good Monarchy transitioning to Constitutional Monarchy.

I can forgive your bias, but not your laughable suggestion that Russia had a 'perfectly good monarchy', nor the notion that the Bolsheviks were Anarchists, or the apparent claim that they fell from space and obliterated the monarchy in a vacuum rather than the fact that the monarchy imploded due to incompetence, a bankrupt county, a crippling war and mass dissent. You know, like just about every history book says. Or maybe my burger flipping brain just couldn't correctly grasp them learnins.

 

Oh by the way, the February revolution removed the Monarchy, which was a liberal coup.

 

Thirdly, Stalin can hardly be called a Bolshevik.

 

Stalin didn't take power until well after the revolution, though he did identify as within the Bolshevik mold.

 

What K2 said is correct, and I don't think he meant the monarchy was "perfectly good" as in a great form of government and taking good care of the Russian people, but rather than the monarchy was, by the definition of what a monarchy is and does and how it fits into the historical progression of governments, "perfectly good".

 

Furthermore he didn't say that Bolsheviks were anarchists, he said that they took advantage of the vacuums created by the Anarchist sentiment and took power for themselves. They won due to the fact that they were the only really organized political organization at the time, even moreso than the Mensheviks... all the happy anarchists with no organization who brought down the monarchy were like, "Wow, cool look at this the monarchy is gone", then the Bolsheviks, who still had their organizational structure and weren't a bunch of bumbling idiots like the Anarchists, swept into that "vacuum" and took power.

[MarshalMoo]

Sorry if this has been brought up already. I don't have time to read this whole thing.

 

The police are leaving the force en masse over this, so why don't the police departments hire black folks in their place?

[Dingdongs]

 

The police are leaving the force en masse over this, so why don't the police departments hire black folks in their place?

I don't think that is the case, do you have any source on police leaving departments due to this?

 

As for hiring black folks, that is a great idea. As I said, if Darren Wilson were black no one would have said a f*cking word. The department should be as close to the makeup of the city they are policing as possible.

[MarshalMoo]

 

 

The police are leaving the force en masse over this, so why don't the police departments hire black folks in their place?

I don't think that is the case, do you have any source on police leaving departments due to this?

 

As for hiring black folks, that is a great idea. As I said, if Darren Wilson were black no one would have said a f*cking word. The department should be as close to the makeup of the city they are policing as possible.

 

I can't seem to find my source now. Hopefully this helps.

 

[Docfaustino]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/america-fear-growing-police-are-getting-out-control

Edited December 9, 2014 by Docfaustino

[theadmiral]

I tried to read this on reddit but my NetNanny blocks reddit. Can anyone tell me what reddit is saying?