American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[Drowsy Emperor]

223 people arrested in NY protests. 

[Hurlshort]

223 people arrested in NY protests. 

 

Considering these are the types of crowds gathering:

 

 

200+ sounds like your standard round up.  Only 5 of those are actually being charged with anything of substance.  

 

Overall it seems like this is going exactly the way it should, for both the protesters and the police.  The message is clearly getting across and isn't being sullied by outbreaks of violence.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Volourn, on 04 Dec 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

 

"If a guy is resisting arrest, the cops have no choice but to subdue him."

 

Subdue not murder. Also, they ahve plenty of choices. he chose the cold blooded murder choice. He did NOt choose 'the least vioent' method of arrest.  Unless you think 'murder' is the 'least violent' LMAO

 

\Why do people really believe they do the cops a favor when they defend  evil scumbag cops? You do nobody a service by defending pigs like this scumbag.  EVIL TO THE CORE.

It wasn't a murder, it was an accident. What would you do in that situation?

 

It would be a case of simplifying if I was directly comparing a country that's rich like Norway, but has a small population, but when you compare the standard of living of a large country like Germany, with 80 million people it becomes directly comparable to the US, even though the US is so much larger.

Germany bled itself dry in two world wars and has managed in 50 years to rise out of the ashes provide a better system for its people than the US, that has not had a continental war in over a century on top of becoming incredibly rich and dominant world power at the time the entirety of Europe was turning to ruins.

 

Are you seriously going to argue that it was easier to solve these issues in germany (wealth redistribution, rebuilding a state, a health, education and social system) from '45 onwards than it was in the US in the past 100 years?

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about? Edited December 6, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Volourn]

"What would you do in that situation?"\

 

Not commit murder for starters.

[Gorgon]

 

 

Tbh Murrican police is really not that bad. You could do worse... like Sierra Leone or Guatemala.

 

The thing with the US system is in its paradoxes - richest country in the world yet incredibly poor wealth distribution, very high crime rate and poor social/health system compared to other, less wealthy western nations. Few Americans are aware just how much better the overall standard of living is in many western european countries compared to how weaker their economies are to the US. 

I've yet to meet anybody from the US that's really willing to give the issue some thought and draw the obvious conclusions.

 

 

Few people from the US are willing to give it much thought because you are simplifying an extremely complex issue.  The US is a gigantic country, and really each state is closer to an independent country than anything else.  It is basically like generalizing all of Europe as one place, instead of independent countries with unique problems.

 

Maye there is a size limit for a country and beyond that, whatever it is, people just don't give as much of a damn about trying to uplift the whole. The scope of the challenge is too great. 

 

I propose spiltting the US in 4 or 5 geographical regions with more things in common. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

What do you define as recognition?  Construction workers get plenty of credit for having dangerous jobs.  They also don't receive nearly as much criticism.  

 

They aren't running around harassing, assaulting, or killing people and getting away with it on a daily basis....

 

 

It's hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out hyperbole like this.

 

I support law enforcement reform, I want to see way more accountability, I want a dramatic shift in the way police interact with their communities.  Do you support these things?

 

How do you expect to achieve any of them if you treat every police officer as some thug who goes around harassing, assaulting, and killing people on a daily basis?  Do you recognize how hostile (and frankly unrealistic) that sounds?

 

It's weird to me that the same people that want to yell at the police for not respecting the ideals of innocent until proven guilty are so fast to condemn an entire police force without evidence. 

 

 

Hurlshot is 100 % correct, you guys are generalizing and making sweeping and unproven statements and making them sound like "facts "

 

 

Its very hypocritical and sounds silly

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

If I was to draw a conclusion from that it would be that the 90% of those not in the elite, don't work? Because they aren't all first generation immigrants.

 

Besides, that isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. The US is a large economy and some individuals, like Schwarzenegger, come a long way from nothing. 

 

But an individual should not have to be as rich as he is to be able to afford good education (that would not send a family into debt), health care, etc. for his children? Or even necessarily in the middle class, let alone the 1%? If there is so much wealth to go around (and there is, many times more so than in France, Germany, UK etc.) then why are some of the basic services a government should provide on the level of a third world country?

 

The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

 

 

The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years.

 

 

Which is why Obama is trying to implement a form of NHS, there is a recognition that changes need to happen to the American healthcare system

[Darkpriest]

 

Volourn, on 04 Dec 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

 

"If a guy is resisting arrest, the cops have no choice but to subdue him."

 

Subdue not murder. Also, they ahve plenty of choices. he chose the cold blooded murder choice. He did NOt choose 'the least vioent' method of arrest.  Unless you think 'murder' is the 'least violent' LMAO

 

\Why do people really believe they do the cops a favor when they defend  evil scumbag cops? You do nobody a service by defending pigs like this scumbag.  EVIL TO THE CORE.

It wasn't a murder, it was an accident. What would you do in that situation?

 

It would be a case of simplifying if I was directly comparing a country that's rich like Norway, but has a small population, but when you compare the standard of living of a large country like Germany, with 80 million people it becomes directly comparable to the US, even though the US is so much larger.

Germany bled itself dry in two world wars and has managed in 50 years to rise out of the ashes provide a better system for its people than the US, that has not had a continental war in over a century on top of becoming incredibly rich and dominant world power at the time the entirety of Europe was turning to ruins.

 

Are you seriously going to argue that it was easier to solve these issues in germany (wealth redistribution, rebuilding a state, a health, education and social system) from '45 onwards than it was in the US in the past 100 years?

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

I am not sure what country are you living in, but it's definitely not the US with the most strict immigration law in the whole world. Do you even realize how hard is to get a sponsored working visa, not to mention an open working visa or god forbid residency status... I think you still have the legal perception of the 1930s-1950s...

[Rosbjerg]

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

Most western countries? You can get a tax sponsored phd here as soon as you have citizenship.. And get paid 1000-2000$ a month from the state while doing it.. Hows that for social mobility?

[Drowsy Emperor]

I have only one question.. are there phd courses in English :D

[Rosbjerg]

I think about half of them are these days.

[Walsingham]

I'm slightly annoyed by the idea that 200 people is a crowd. I'd bet good money I could rally 200 people for a protest about blueberry waffles.

[LadyCrimson]

...I'd bet good money I could rally 200 people for a protest about blueberry waffles.

You're making laugh again, stop that.

 

I don't think "crowd" really has a defined number, outside of the fact it's more than several and is associated with some event/rally/gathering. Big enough to seem out of the norm if you see them while just walking down the street.

[Drowsy Emperor]

200 people were arrested, presumably there were many more. Can't imagine they rounded them all up

[Hurlshort]

There were about 10,000 protesters in New York, although I think that was only in one area.  Which is why I said 200+ arrests is very tame, particularly with only a handful being charged with anything substantial.  Most of the arrests are basically being cited and released.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

If I was to draw a conclusion from that it would be that the 90% of those not in the elite, don't work? Because they aren't all first generation immigrants.

 

Besides, that isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. The US is a large economy and some individuals, like Schwarzenegger, come a long way from nothing. 

 

But an individual should not have to be as rich as he is to be able to afford good education (that would not send a family into debt), health care, etc. for his children? Or even necessarily in the middle class, let alone the 1%? If there is so much wealth to go around (and there is, many times more so than in France, Germany, UK etc.) then why are some of the basic services a government should provide on the level of a third world country?

 

The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years.

 

 

You don't need to be rich to afford a good education in the US.  What is wrong with taking on debt to pay for school?  It's part of a social contract, they are offered at extremely low interest rates, and you are given a long time to pay them back.  I certainly don't regret the $40,000 I spent on college and grad school, I've been paying it off slowly over the last decade and now only have $7k left on the loan.  That's without my parents help.  My parents paid for my first year of school, which came out to about $10k.  After that I got a part time job and managed my debt carefully.  Some people make dumb decisions about how much debt they take on, but there are plenty of chances to succeed without drowning yourself.

 

I'll agree with out health care being screwed.  I've got insurance and I still have a pile of ridiculous medical bills sitting on my desk right now.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Hurlshot

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

If I was to draw a conclusion from that it would be that the 90% of those not in the elite, don't work? Because they aren't all first generation immigrants.

 

Besides, that isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. The US is a large economy and some individuals, like Schwarzenegger, come a long way from nothing. 

 

But an individual should not have to be as rich as he is to be able to afford good education (that would not send a family into debt), health care, etc. for his children? Or even necessarily in the middle class, let alone the 1%? If there is so much wealth to go around (and there is, many times more so than in France, Germany, UK etc.) then why are some of the basic services a government should provide on the level of a third world country?

 

The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years.

 

 

You don't need to be rich to afford a good education in the US.  What is wrong with taking on debt to pay for school?  It's part of a social contract, they are offered at extremely low interest rates, and you are given a long time to pay them back.  I certainly don't regret the $40,000 I spent on college and grad school, I've been paying it off slowly over the last decade and now only have $7k left on the loan.  That's without my parents help.  My parents paid for my first year of school, which came out to about $10k.  After that I got a part time job and managed my debt carefully.  Some people make dumb decisions about how much debt they take on, but there are plenty of chances to succeed without drowning yourself.

 

I'll agree with out health care being screwed.  I've got insurance and I still have a pile of ridiculous medical bills sitting on my desk right now.

 

 

Why take on a debt when the state can provide it for free, or close to it? 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

 

 

223 people arrested in NY protests.

Considering these are the types of crowds gathering:

 

 

200+ sounds like your standard round up. Only 5 of those are actually being charged with anything of substance.

 

Overall it seems like this is going exactly the way it should, for both the protesters and the police. The message is clearly getting across and isn't being sullied by outbreaks of violence.

Surprised there hasn't been any, would have thought some people would cook off or cop agents would get to work. Wonder what they are being charged with in instances like this.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you define as recognition? Construction workers get plenty of credit for having dangerous jobs. They also don't receive nearly as much criticism.

They aren't running around harassing, assaulting, or killing people and getting away with it on a daily basis....

It's hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out hyperbole like this.

 

I support law enforcement reform, I want to see way more accountability, I want a dramatic shift in the way police interact with their communities. Do you support these things?

 

How do you expect to achieve any of them if you treat every police officer as some thug who goes around harassing, assaulting, and killing people on a daily basis? Do you recognize how hostile (and frankly unrealistic) that sounds?

 

It's weird to me that the same people that want to yell at the police for not respecting the ideals of innocent until proven guilty are so fast to condemn an entire police force without evidence.

Hurlshot is 100 % correct, you guys are generalizing and making sweeping and unproven statements and making them sound like "facts "

 

 

Its very hypocritical and sounds silly

Is it ? If the cops need to reform their ways or be nicer with the community then...a lot of them would have to be a bad sort, else why need reform?

 

I find the police whining about being demonized rather amusing in all this.

[Hurlshort]

In response to Drowsy, the state is already footing the bill (really taxpayers) for a kindergarten through 12th grade education. After 18, why shouldnt the student have some financial stake in all of this?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

What do you define as recognition?  Construction workers get plenty of credit for having dangerous jobs.  They also don't receive nearly as much criticism.  

 

They aren't running around harassing, assaulting, or killing people and getting away with it on a daily basis....

 

 

It's hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out hyperbole like this.

 

I support law enforcement reform, I want to see way more accountability, I want a dramatic shift in the way police interact with their communities.  Do you support these things?

 

How do you expect to achieve any of them if you treat every police officer as some thug who goes around harassing, assaulting, and killing people on a daily basis?  Do you recognize how hostile (and frankly unrealistic) that sounds?

 

It's weird to me that the same people that want to yell at the police for not respecting the ideals of innocent until proven guilty are so fast to condemn an entire police force without evidence. 

 

 

There is no hyperbole here. You choose to be ignorant of what is common amongst police, and what their job actually is. You choose to buy into the propaganda that we need law X, need police, and that they are the good guys.

 

Hey.. I once thought that way too. It's hard not too.. that's the BS we're fed in this nation of ours as we grow up. But then I saw and experienced some things that opened my eyes and changed my mind.

 

I never said every police officer is a thug. You did. Nearly every police officer (the ones on the streets anyways) do go around harassing people every day. Some may do it politely, but they do it just the same.

 

People are indeed assaulted on a daily basis in this nation, and killed on an almost daily basis. Most of the assaults go unreported, and a great many of them are ignored. Some of those killings (like Michael Brown) were justified, but a great many of them are not. And of the latter, it is extremely rare for the offending officer to be held accountable for their actions. And that's because of people such as yourself who think the cops are the good guys, and because of that 'bro' code mentioned in this thread where even otherwise good police cover, condone, or don't speak out against evil action X taken by their fellow policemen. And that makes them bad police.

 

You speak of reform? Well... that's feasible in some departments, unneeded in others (there are some well run police departments out there), and impossible with some (ie: LA, Albuquerque). You can't reform what is rotten to the core. You need to throw it out and find something new or nothing at all. It's something to be handled on a local/state basis however. Unfortunately there are far too many people such as yourself right now that assume the system works and that we need much of the system at all. The truth is that system is a bleeping nightmare for tens of millions of people.

 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

It wasn't a murder, it was an accident. What would you do in that situation?

 

 

It was manslaughter if not murder. What would I have done? What any reasonable person would have and not assaulted the guy to begin with. And if I'd somehow lost my mind temporarily and felt the need to tackle the guy I'd have let up when the guy said he couldn't breathe. I certainly wouldn't have put him in a choke hold unless the guy had made and obvious attempt on my life, as I'm well aware (as anyone should be; especially anyone who has training/experience in any kind of hand to hand combat) just how dangerous and potentially deadly those are.

 

Had I been one of the other people there and seen the whole thing unfold, I'd have been screaming at the police to get the bleep off the guy. Had I been one of the other police there, I'd have told my fellow officers to step off, and if necessary physically forced them to after the guy indicated he couldn't breathe.

 

Unfortunately things are so @#(!ed up now that as a citizen I likely wouldn't physically get involved as the police would have likely shot me and people like yourself would have justified it.

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

No. Once upon a time it was that way. But for the better part of a century now it's not been that simple, and the more and more we drift towards communism and fascism that is less and less the case.

 

The U.S. is still one of the best places to live, and it's still one of the best places on earth to go from near nothing to something, but that avenue has gotten a lot harder to find and travel. And to say that the U.S. is still one of the best places is not as much saying the U.S. is a good place now, it's just that near everywhere else is worse. Compared to what it once was, the modern U.S. has a nightmarishly oppressive government. What the U.S. still has over more other nations though is better tools to become what it once was, and a larger portion of the populace than pretty much anywhere else on earth that appreciates real freedom. The bad thing is, as large as that portion of the populace is, it's become dwarfed by legions of zombies sucking the teet of the state or mindlessly supporting the state in the various evils it perpetrates home and abroad. A lot of people have unwittingly come to support fascism and communism in the U.S., and near as many if not more are just mindlessly watching snookie or 'professional sports' game X and couldn't even name the three major branches of government.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

If you're willing to work, all doors are open. People come here with nothing, and in a generation they're in the elite. What other country can you say that about?

 

 

If I was to draw a conclusion from that it would be that the 90% of those not in the elite, don't work? Because they aren't all first generation immigrants.

 

Besides, that isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. The US is a large economy and some individuals, like Schwarzenegger, come a long way from nothing. 

 

But an individual should not have to be as rich as he is to be able to afford good education (that would not send a family into debt), health care, etc. for his children? Or even necessarily in the middle class, let alone the 1%? If there is so much wealth to go around (and there is, many times more so than in France, Germany, UK etc.) then why are some of the basic services a government should provide on the level of a third world country?

 

The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years.

 

 

You don't need to be rich to afford a good education in the US.  What is wrong with taking on debt to pay for school?  It's part of a social contract, they are offered at extremely low interest rates, and you are given a long time to pay them back.  I certainly don't regret the $40,000 I spent on college and grad school, I've been paying it off slowly over the last decade and now only have $7k left on the loan.  That's without my parents help.  My parents paid for my first year of school, which came out to about $10k.  After that I got a part time job and managed my debt carefully.  Some people make dumb decisions about how much debt they take on, but there are plenty of chances to succeed without drowning yourself.

 

I'll agree with out health care being screwed.  I've got insurance and I still have a pile of ridiculous medical bills sitting on my desk right now.

 

 

Why take on a debt when the state can provide it for free, or close to it? 

 

 

Why take on large amounts of debt when if the state isn't involved the price of education is affordable to the average person.

 

Prior to Department of Education getting involved in student loans paying for even the most prestigious schools in the U.S. was feasible for anyone who was willing to work and go to school at the same time. It's how it was done by a great many people up until the mid 80s or so. While the Federal student loan programs started sooner, it took a little while (as it always does) for the negative affects to be seen and those college prices, set by greedy and irresponsible trustees and college bureaucracies, began skyrocketing due to guaranteed funding by the Feds. (Note: that college prices are only one of the negative affects of the Federal Student Loan programs) It's largely the same reason a lot of medical prices in the U.S. are ridiculous, Near unlimited federal money begets corruption and price inflation, and a whole heckuvalot of it.

 

One shouldn't have to take out loans equivalent to a very nice house mortgage in order to get a good higher education. Hurlshot is a happy debt slave with $40k in loans for something that wasn't needed a few generations ago to do his job but is required by his beloved state now, and something that cost a fraction of what it does now just a generation ago. He thinks he signed a social contract at some point and that everyone else did too, even though no such thing exists. Lucky for him he was actually able to find a job in his field. A very large number of college grads with 5 or 6 figures of debt cannot. Hurlshot chooses to be ignorant of that problem though because his life is good and he believes in the mythic socialist utopian 'social contract'

 

Also, one should be able to dispose of those loans in the same manner as any other in bankruptcy court if need be, but one cannot and millions of people are shackled as debt slaves in the U.S. as a result.

 

The federal student loan program is very arguably the greatest evil the U.S. government has perpetrated on it's populace. Perhaps even moreso than the income tax. Hmmmm... both of those evils benefit the same people! Wonder why.....

Edited December 6, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Drowsy Emperor]

There is no such thing as communism in the US. US is the complete opposite of communism's ideal of wealth redistribution.

Having the state run health care, education etc. does not make a country communist, if it does, most of Europe is communist as well.

 

You could argue that the US is basically a one party state where its impossible for another party/idea to penetrate the political spectrum or for any other actor to successfully participate in politics due to the extreme costs of running a campaign and tight media control of set topics that the system allows to circulate. 

 

By extension you could argue that its essentially authoritarian in nature (like communist states used to be) and under complete control of moneyed elites (unlike communist states, where the elite was political first and foremost), but whenever I hear a person from the US argue that the US is communist, I can't help but wonder what's going through your head.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor