http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

The cops exist to protect the status quo, to protect the rich and powerful

@Sic - My brother is a cop and you are a fucking moron.

At best, the police are there to draw chalk outlines and maybe - just maybe, if they're really lucky (because they're certainly not skilled, nor are they putting in extra hours to stop bad guys unless they need to spike their pension with beuacoup overtime bucks) - catch the perpetrator of a serious crime. At worst, they will beat a mentally ill homeless man to death for shits and giggles, rape women at gunpoint, or arrest and frame innocent people in high profile cases just to look like they're "doing something" (while the real perpetrator goes free). In between comes writing traffic tickets, beating up protesters, and generally throwing their ample weight around to impress upon us lowly citizens how important they are. Don't forget, though - these doughnut-guzzlers "deserve your respect".

[/sarcasm]

Yeah, I think we'd be better off without them.

Sic - the police are there to enforce law, asshole.....so technically you are right - they enforce the status quo, which is agreed upon laws of the land. What's the matter with that?

Proof, once again, that your head is so firmly lodged up your ass you have to shit to eat.

Would you rather the police NOT enforce the laws?

tell us, sicarious, in your infinite wisdom, what SHOULD police do? Should police as individuals pick and choose which laws they personally want to enforce? Ahhhh...so whitey killed a nigger....we don't care about that. Yeah...chick was dressed like a hoe and got raped...who cares. Is that the legal system you want? Where cops don't enforce laws? Or would you rather they enforce all the laws on the books?

God you are a fucking moron.

and Krellin drops the N bomb! WTG man that takes BALLS.

Anyway, I agree that police are there to uphold the law. But when the law is wrong or oppressive, the police become the bad guys. Who is to decide when this happens? No one person. But that's what demonstrations are for. And when enough people are unhappy, it's time for cops to decide what side they are really on. Almost universally it is the wrong one.

It's still not clear to me what is wrong with the "rich and powerful". The rich and powerful worked hard to become rich and powerful. All of those atrocities mentioned in the videos happen everywhere in the world. They are all either necessary evils to support the 7 billion people who now live on this planet or else unavoidable disasters in the workforce. As for the monetary issues, none will change as long as we live in capitalist society. There are no laws against outsourcing, downsizing, firing emplyees, or paying out large bonuses. So what is there to protest? Capitalism? Harvard Graduates? Ambition? This is the economic system most of the world has chosen, and all of a sudden people don't want to deal with it because it didn't work out for them.

G-Sim I think the main complaint is that the few live a life of luxury while others work 60 hours a week and can't afford health insurance or college or a home of their own. There are real changes that could be made, still within a capitalist society, that could remedy some of the most grievous of the imbalance.

This seems appropriate:

http://media.adamdodson.org/var/albums/Religion/Fuck%20Thy%20Police.jpg?m=1276762669

Most people did not choose this system. It was forced upon them and we have seen numerous examples of people rejecting it (anti-imperialist struggles, Paris Commune, anarchist Spain, etc).

Ummmmmm....so yeah. I kinda have to say it Sic + 1. For just about everything you have contributed in this thread. I feel I have little to say because Sic has said it all already.

"I hope should you ever get mugged or have your house broken in to or something that you will have the moral consistency to NOT call the pigs, whom you so despise."

Call me a hypocrite, but I do call the police when I am the victim of crimes. Mostly because it's what "good citizens" are supposed to do. The response always leaves me more pissed off at the police than the perpetrator of the crime.

I remember one time my car was broken into overnight a few years back, and some tools stolen (value: about $300). I called the police at 7AM. They kept me waiting for four hours (I couldn't help but thinking for 3.5 hours of that wait time that a bunch of high-school dropouts can deliver me a pizza in 30 minutes - but it takes an Officer making $100K+ per year four hours to show up). When the Officer got there, he refused to do any kind of investigating - didn't even ask me what kind of tools were stolen. He just shrugged and said "well, you shouldn't be leaving any valuables in your car". He suggested I check the local pawn shops for them to see if they were for sale, and then drove off.

Cops are worthless. For the cost of that police officer (about $600/day), in a free market system I could've hired a private detective for far less who actually would've dusted for fingerprints, ran them against a criminal database, and took 20 minutes to call a few of the local pawn shops. He would be interested in finding the perpetrator, so he could satisfy Tolstoy the customer and get referals for future business. *AND* he probably would've shown up promptly, so I didn't have to stand on the sidewalk on a hot August day for four hours and miss half a day of work (for which, of course, I did not get paid).

Cops are worthless. Unless you're one of The Elite and need to disperse one of those angry peasant mobs, in which case they're a real bargain - because the peasants are paying for them, not you.

Nice. Sounds like the OWS movement is developing a story to tell itself about how it can claim to be for Democracy while ignoring democratically enacted laws.

This system is not considered democratic but rather bought and paid for by the millionaires and billionaires, so your sad attempt to call OWS hypocrites fails miserably. It's no surprise to me that the bedwetters and police lovers on this thread find no contradiction with the fact that our courts think money is free speech but it's ok for people to get their heads kicked in if they dare peacefully assemble, because omg somebody might be late to their meeting with their drunken bros somewhere.

@Putin, of course, that's exactly my point though. It's always easy to say, "Well, THIS isn't a REAL democracy" about the system that one does not like, unless and until the people start voting for the positions that YOU want. Oldest trick in the book.

Oh, and by the way, I would not say I am a police lover. While I respect many police and do not support the often histrionic attitude toward them of the OWS, I am very wary of police power and overall tend to believe it is too great.

You're right, we should have just accepted the 'rule of law'. Segregation was democratic, who are we to say otherwise. Arresting anti-war speech was democratic. Who are we to say otherwise. Civil disobedience is just lawless agitators run amok. Thanks for your courageous position, there semck. I'm sure you feel the same way when the US accuses the enemy du jour of "rigging elections" because we don't like the outcome.

Unless of course it's cracking the skulls of protesters you don't like. Ever see a cop pepper spray a gun wielding tea party thug? Nope.

@Putin,
Segregation was not democratic. Very large portions of the populace were not allowed to vote. That is not the case now.
Arresting anti-war speech WAS democratic. It was also wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying that something democratic is wrong. There's just something wrong with saying that something democratic is undemocratic.
"Democratic" and "morally right" are not synonyms.

If you think USA is a democracy you are sorely mistaken...

"Very large portions of the populace were not allowed to vote. That is not the case now."

Republicans are busy trying to change that, "democratically", I guess.

"There's just something wrong with saying that something democratic is undemocratic."

Some people disagree with your definition of democracy. Being able to vote in elections in which you have to be a millionaire or billionaire to have a chance to win isn't considered democratic. Democracy means more than voting. It means the people rule. Apparently your vision of democracy is showing up on election day and then sitting at home, apathetically waiting until the next election. Citizen participation? Nah we don't need that, that's a nuisance.

"Being able to vote in elections in which you have to be a millionaire or billionaire to have a chance to win isn't considered democratic."

Beautiful use of the passive voice. By whom? By your group.

"Apparently your vision of democracy is showing up on election day and then sitting at home, apathetically waiting until the next election. Citizen participation? Nah we don't need that, that's a nuisance. "

Uh huh. Nothing I said in any way implied any idea in this paragraph in any way. Typical putin interpretative skills.

Given the ridiculously widespread phenomenon of completely uninformed morons on all sides of the political aisle who literally make what is presently the most important decision in the world on inane things like whether someone "looks presidential" or "has a funny sounding name" or something along those lines, I would actually argue that as an aggregate measurement citizen participation is a nuisance.

That said, the alternative is pretty bad too. I'm honestly not sure whether ignorance is more damaging than malevolence here. The lesser of the two evils is still pretty bad.

Yeah not a big fan of democracy here

"Yeah not a big fan of democracy here"

I've always said libertarians not-so-secretly want a market dictatorship.

"By whom? By your group."

By what definition is a country ruled by the super-rich democratic?

"Uh huh. Nothing I said in any way implied any idea in this paragraph in any way. Typical putin interpretative skills."

You continue to complain about the "illegality" of peaceful demonstrations, so what type of citizen participation do you approve that challenges the ruling class in any meaningful way?

"By what definition is a country ruled by the super-rich democratic?"

This is just rhetoric. Yes, the place of money in our politics is troubling and a difficult issue. But no, it is not fiat rule by corporation. We still vote, etc., and to pretend otherwise is tired rhetoric that I assume will be recognized as such by any fair reader.

"You continue to complain about the 'illegality' of peaceful demonstrations"

Nope, I didn't. Interpretation fail 2. Nowhere did I say that peaceful demonstrations were illegal.

Clearly the way to beat them is to stop protesting peacefully, get some guns and grenades and start a civil war...

Semck, how is this an interpretation fail? This is what you said:

"Sounds like the OWS movement is developing a story to tell itself about how it can claim to be for Democracy while ignoring democratically enacted laws."

Ignoring democratically enacted laws, by peacefully demonstrating.

"We still vote, etc., and to pretend otherwise is tired rhetoric that I assume will be recognized as such by any fair reader."

Like I said, apparently voting, or at least most of us being able to vote because segments keep getting disenfranchised, is your sole criteria of democracy. Who they get a choice to vote is apparently irrelevant, who is able to afford to run for office is apparently irrelevant. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Senators are millionaires, is irrelevant.

@Putin,

"Semck, how is this an interpretation fail? This is what you said:

"'Sounds like the OWS movement is developing a story to tell itself about how it can claim to be for Democracy while ignoring democratically enacted laws.'

"Ignoring democratically enacted laws, by peacefully demonstrating. "

I would love for you to point out for me where I said those last three words.

Perhaps I was unclear and sounded like that's what I meant. If so, sorry. What I meant was two things:

(1) The OWS movement has notoriously used private property without permission, ignored public health laws, etc., and has defended this practice; and
(2) that entire video, and a great deal of OWS's rhetoric (to the extent the movement is sufficiently unified to have identifiable rhetoric) has focused on criticizing what is in fact the economic system of the US: private property laws, banking laws, etc. (Yes, they occasionally also suggest violations of these laws).

Now, I know you are against these laws / this system, but it is not _undemocratic_ that they exist. They are democratically chosen and enacted laws.

"The fact that the overwhelming majority of Senators are millionaires, is irrelevant. "

Well, it's been often said, but no, I don't find it too surprising that people choose successful people to be their government.

I don't necessarily endorse it -- I think that many times, they reward shallow success even where real skills or wisdom are not evident, but I don't really think that's the big Oligarchical conspiracy you're suggesting. It's just poor judgment. Like I said, democracy's not perfect.

It's highly ironic, by the way, that you sit here accusing me of wanting to reduce democracy to once-every-two-years voting and then let the big corporations have their way, when in the next thread over I am urging people to do what they can to get a corporate-sponsored bill killed in Congress.