“If”.
Ladder? bah. When you have the Jaws of life you go in through the fuckin front door.
Show me any other thread where you are OK with raising taxes. Fucking just one, you troll. Troll troll troll, you ridiculous trolly-ass cup of troll juice.
Troll!
Troll
What makes you think that asking this question is some grand intellectual victory on your part?
It’s the biggest fucking no-brainer since brains were invented.
ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD BE PAID THROUGH TAXES.
I’m glad to see we agree. Now stop trying to treat the symptom instead of the disease.
Get to fuck, you pointless, ignorant pathetic piece of shit. I don’t owe you anything, and even if this were the only situation where I’d rather raise taxes - you know, instead of doing something that you think is wrong as well as me - it wouldn’t make me wrong.
So why the fuck were you having a go at people who suggested doing that rather than those who support policing for revenue?
I’d definitely prefer them to cut services or go into debt when those “services” involve shaking down the public for money.
The Ferguson PD was violating Federal law, per the DOJ report. I don’t know why you are more respectful of any local laws and statutes that allow them to shake down innocent black people for money than Federal law that is designed to protect civil rights.
They were suggesting that, absent those taxes, “policing for revenue” is an appropriate and acceptable thing to do. It’s not, and it’s not the only other option.
I am “having a go” at people who believe that using police power to trump up charges against citizens in order to raise revenue for government services is “natural,” “expected,” or anything else other than oppressive, dictatorial, shameful, and a gross abuse of authority.
If the police department doesn’t have the money to operate, then the people don’t get a police department that operates. It’s not the job of the police department to go out and find its own funding sources through charging people with trumped up crimes and then creating a debtor’s prison system.
I’m not saying you’re a troll, but…every time you post, a bridge spontaneously forms above the electronic device you are using, and I heard you make a good living by replacing old bridges like this.
I don’t think the revenue in question supports the police department alone. Typically that would go into the general fund, and support all municipal spending.
That’s really doesn’t make a difference. It just means that the entire ruling establishment is corrupt.
Given that policing is probably the fundamental role of government, and that forming into groups for safety is the basis from which government of any kind sprang, the idea that there should be no police force is absurd. It’s not going to happen, and it won’t happen.
So fund it properly, through taxes, and stop arguing against doing so. You bunch of fucking idiotic, self-defeating, thoughtless liberal twats. Policing for revenue is obviously terrible, and also obviously far better than anarchy, so stop pretending that’s a viable option. After going on for so fucking long about “punishing the poor/the minorities” you now suggest that doing something that would be far worse for them than the status quo is a good idea? Fuck you all, you bunch of fucking hypocrites. You are no better than those you claim to despise - frankly, you’re worse, because you are actively encouraging causing them suffering to teach them a lesson - something only the most extreme of right-wingers (and no-one in this conversation) does.
And you - get a fucking mirror and hang your pathetic head in shape, you hypocritical trolling fucktard.
To the extent that we both consider the Ferguson police to be a pustulent running sore on our democracy, it’s nice to see some agreement.
I actually agree. It’s not going to happen. When you have an inadequately funded police force, gangs take over. I strongly recommend Ta Nehisi Coates’s article on the subject:
The lack of an effective and impartial police force in Ferguson meant that instead there was a gang of extorters who wore uniforms and took what they wanted from the impoverished folk of their town. It’s a clear example of what happens without a police force who will serve and protect.
I think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.
When a system is set up such that there is an incentive for it to be exploited, then some people will exploit it. That’s unavoidable human nature. That doesn’t mean that the exploitation is OK or should be ignored or forgiven. There certainly are plenty of individual people who are ethical enough not to abuse their position even when the system somewhat incentivizes them to do so.
In this case, systemic failings encouraged and abetted individual failings.
I’ll hold this in case I meet anyone who is actually arguing against properly funding police.
Here’s one;
I’m sure you two have lots to talk about.