HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, so did her loser hubby, the departments are still waiting for them.

now that is just an awesome headline.

+1

Ah, appealing to the police unions for support. A bipartisan strategy: unions for the liberal candidates, law and order for the conservative ones.

knbber2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, so did her loser hubby, the departments are still waiting for them.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for Bill's middle-class tax cut and his veto of NAFTA.

Maybe we could just cut out the middle-men and send 100000 of our finest gang-members and 3-time losers to Iraq?

Even if we have to pay Castro royalties for using the idea.

Police State, anyone?

Why not legalize drugs? You would save billions every year and raise large amounts of money that can be spent on rehab for people who want it by taxing them like alcohol.

According to polls Link, 99% of people would not do hard drugs like Heroin or Cocaine even if they were legal. (Capitan obvious to the rescue on this one.) The other 1% already do, but at a highly inflated black market price.

Of course if you did, you would have to fire a whole bunch of prison workers and police officers as a result since about 75% of drug related crime is actually from the illicit trade of drugs. Police would also not get all that money for their cool toys as well.

Very cute headline.

Since when is increasing cops part of the job of the president?

Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

Why should local police be the concern of the federal government? This is a state and local issue. If Philadelphia is such a crime ridden city, then the city and county of Philadelphia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania can pitch in for the funds.

If you are going to hire 100,000 new people, how about hiring them for departments such as ICE, TSA, FAA, FBI and CIA.

I hear that we have a lot of drugs and people crossing the border, illegal goods flowing in through our ports, long lines at airport security, overworked air traffic control operators, interstate crime syndicates and brown people overseas that want to blow us up.

Oh wait, there I go with that whole separation of powers thing between the federal and state level. Duh. I guess I should go smoke some more of that state approved medicinal marijuana my doctor prescribed for me so I can chill out regarding this biatch.

Oh wait...

Dinjiin: Oh wait, there I go with that whole separation of powers thing between the federal and state level. Duh. I guess I should go smoke some more of that state approved medicinal marijuana my doctor prescribed for me so I can chill out regarding this biatch.

To be technical, that's federalism, not separation of powers. That only refers to co-equal branches of government within the same power structure.

DamnYankees: that's federalism, not separation of powers

Yes, yes, I'm sure that Alexander Hamilton is spinning in his grave as I type.

Dinjiin: Why should local police be the concern of the federal government? This is a state and local issue. If Philadelphia is such a crime ridden city, then the city and county of Philadelphia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania can pitch in for the funds.

If you are going to hire 100,000 new people, how about hiring them for departments such as ICE, TSA, FAA, FBI and CIA.

I hear that we have a lot of drugs and people crossing the border, illegal goods flowing in through our ports, long lines at airport security, overworked air traffic control operators, interstate crime syndicates and brown people overseas that want to blow us up.

Oh wait, there I go with that whole separation of powers thing between the federal and state level. Duh. I guess I should go smoke some more of that state approved medicinal marijuana my doctor prescribed for me so I can chill out regarding this biatch.

Oh wait...


I SOOOOO agree with this; leave it to the states. But as someone completely frustrated with the spending of the scale of available State taxes, I think it would be a great idea to have a pool of funds for each states based on population and size for improvements such as this. Take the pork away and let them divvy up the additional pool of funds.

This way, you still have the states' rights intact; the lack of idiotic and heavy-handed federal interference and enforcement avoided, and more (and better regulated) cops helping people out.

Yeah, like that's so going to happen.

After the 1992 LA riots, people were screaming for more cops; Riordan and Chief Gates put a tax referendum on the November ballot to hire and equip 1000 more cops. Guess what? No one wanted to pay for them.

Everyone says they WANT 100,000 more cops, and it probably would help, but the money's gotta come from somewhere; and I will bet my pathetic stimulus check against a pile of cow shiat no one will ever, ever ever vote the money for them.

Someone post that pic of Times Square with Hillary's face all over the place.

Wow, recycling Bill's campaign promise. Nice.

Hillary figured it worked for her husband. Problem is, when HE proposed it, we were having a bump in violent crimes.

Last I heard, violent crimes have been dropping for over a decade.

Clinton proposes 100,000 new police officers on streets; feels a surge will be an effective means of controlling violence

Get us out of Detroit, Baltimore and New Orleans NOW!

Also FTFA regarding public campaign funding: Obama said if he wins the nomination he plans to confer with presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about "how to move forward in a way that doesn't allow third parties to overwhelm the system."

Conferring with the enemy to protect the status quo. Isn't that like, oh I don't know, ... racketeering?

Here in Chicago, our new police supernintendo has ghettobird patrols on the weekends in some neighborhoods. I was driving in to visit parents at old neighborhood a few Saturdays ago when I first saw this going. They also had mobile command centers in school parking lots. It's all very high tech. I guess we the general public wouldn't understand so it's not talked about.

Um, doesn't anyone remember 1992? It might just be me, but I distinctly recall a certain presidential candidate named Clinton proposing to put 100,000 new police officers on the street.

The Clinton-Gore Administration's COPS initiative, passed as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, has provided more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies funding to hire or redeploy more than 100,000 police officers.

In reality, I think they only hired about 15,000, and most of those went to drug enforcement.

Nothing works like success, huh?

Yeah, after the TSA buildup, I feel *so* much safer on airplanes now.

knbber2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, so did her loser hubby, the departments are still waiting for them.

Ayup, now that's a campaign promise you can xerox!

Remove all Republicans: OregonVet: Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

There's a difference between trained police officers with weapons and random yahoos killing their children because they forget to put the safety on.

As long as the police intentionally shoot an unarmed person you're okay with that, As opposed to an accident?

Why is this so hard to understand? Bill was for NAFTA, she was against it. She didn't say anything because it was working and now that enough people are against it, she is more proudly telling everyone.

Great. Yes. Just what I want, a politician who doesn't "say anything" when his opinions are unpopular but miraculosuly appears to defend said fews when they become popular.

Sounds like the typical sack of shiat politican.

Anyway, it would be one thing if Hillary had merely not said anything, but she actively advocated FOR NAFTA and called NAFTA a success and lauded it in her book.

She is a lying sack of poo. How can you not see this?

Remove all Republicans: torquestripe: As long as the police intentionally shoot an unarmed person you're okay with that, As opposed to an accident?

I would have an unarmed police force. Then people who longer be afraid of those 'accidental' police shootings, and might finally dispose of their weapons.

Unicorns and rainbows! Let me know when crime just magically vanishes so you can have an "unarmed" police force.

OregonVet: Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

This is hands down the dumbest fark post I've read in months. Congrats.

and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People

/Well, that's what it made me think.

That was Bill, this is Hillary. Funny how the same people saying that Bill's success shouldn't be used as credit for Hillary are now trying to pass perceived failures or lies on his part onto her.

Actually, what is funny is how idiots like you want HIllary to get credit for every good thing that happened in the 90s but to have no responsibiility for any of the bad things, even bad things she actively advocated and lauded.

Remove all Republicans: Funny how the same people saying that Bill's success shouldn't be used as credit for Hillary are now trying to pass perceived failures or lies on his part onto her.

It was a statement of unoriginality against the anti-Xerox candidate. I never wrote or implied that Hillary had anything to do with the crime bill.

Although now that you mention it, it would be worth asking Bill why it didn't work the first time.

ChewbaccaJones: This way, you still have the states' rights intact; the lack of idiotic and heavy-handed federal interference and enforcement avoided, and more (and better regulated) cops helping people out.

But the point isn't to share the costs. I don't want MY tax money going to pay for cops in Illinois.

More money handouts to buy votes

Hey, potheads.

This is why the Clintons suck. Bill Clinton was the first presidency since Nixon to prosecute possession of small amounts of marijuana in federal court. The prison population went from 200,000 to 2 million. George Bush didn't create the police state we live in now, Bill Clinton did, he just handed George the keys.

I'll support this, but only if we use them to arrest Bush for war crimes.

Tallgordon

You caught my attention with the first part but bored me with the latter.

AkaDad: I'll support this, but only if we use them to arrest Bush for war crimes.

If Bill would have done what he should have done to Iraq during his Presidency Iraq would not have been so terrible and drawn out.
But he had to get his dick sucked and all that. We all know how it turns out.
Both Clintons are buffoons, much like yourself.

OregonVet: Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

Too many people feel that gun ownership is paranoid behavior so long as the government is controlled by those they agree with, but suddenly see the wisdom of the Second Amendment when they notice how easily those in power take additional powers from the people and subjugate them. A few more despots will show us how important it is that the citizens not give too much physical power to the government. An armed population is one difficult to dominate or control.
On the right, too many people think expanding government power is safe in the hands of Republicans, not realizing that they too will be targeted by the same restrictive measures as soon as the tables turn, and their own legislation will be used as legal precedent to dominate them.
Most of Bush's policies are justified in court by the previous arguments of the Clinton administration, and the next regime will likely base their legal arguments on those put forward by the Bush administration.
In the end, it's not total despots we should fear, though, it's people who think they know better than we do what is good for us, and will force us to do that which they dictate for our own "good".

Crosshair: Why not legalize drugs? You would save billions every year and raise large amounts of money that can be spent on rehab for people who want it by taxing them like alcohol.

Why not legalize everything? If everything's allowed, there's no crime at all, and we would save trillions by dismantling all those now-unnecessary law enforcement organizations. Plus I could blow up my neighbor's yappy dog with a suitcase nuke, and nobody could say anything about it.

(I read someplace that if suitcase nukes were legalized, 99% of the people wouldn't use them anyway, so most yappy dogs would be perfectly safe. Just not the ones near me.)

At lunch today there was an entire swat team in the restaurant. All of them were obviously on steroids, which to my knowledge are federally controlled substances. Why is this okay and tolerated? Why is there a war on some drugs used by certain people? Do we really need 100,000 more juiced up power hungry douche bags on the street?

torquestripe: AkaDad: I'll support this, but only if we use them to arrest Bush for war crimes.

If Bill would have done what he should have done to Iraq during his Presidency Iraq would not have been so terrible and drawn out.
But he had to get his dick sucked and all that. We all know how it turns out.
Both Clintons are buffoons, much like yourself.

I lol'd. Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

Well goddamn, I had a chuckle. fark Hillary and her massive penis.

/Eww.

EdgeRunner: Crosshair: Why not legalize drugs? You would save billions every year and raise large amounts of money that can be spent on rehab for people who want it by taxing them like alcohol.

Why not legalize everything? If everything's allowed, there's no crime at all, and we would save trillions by dismantling all those now-unnecessary law enforcement organizations. Plus I could blow up my neighbor's yappy dog with a suitcase nuke, and nobody could say anything about it.

(I read someplace that if suitcase nukes were legalized, 99% of the people wouldn't use them anyway, so most yappy dogs would be perfectly safe. Just not the ones near me.)

Reductio ad absurdum, AKA Fark Snark. Legalization of possession of enormously powerful weaponry has consequences to more people than just the person possessing the enormously powerful weapon. Legalization of possession of a plant so prolific it's farking nicknamed "weed"? Not so much. The consequences are *gasp* watching Animal Planet at 4:30 AM and *swoon* eating the whole damn bag of Funyuns.

Remove all Republicans: torquestripe: As long as the police intentionally shoot an unarmed person you're okay with that, As opposed to an accident?

I would have an unarmed police force. Then people who longer be afraid of those 'accidental' police shootings, and might finally dispose of their weapons.

It's about time Fark got a lefty troll we can all play with. BRAVO!

OregonVet: Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

This is what did it for me, i used to think there was no good reason for most people to have firearms. Then after so many years of the Bush administrations 100 yard dash to fascism, i have thoroughly reconsidered.

Occam's Chainsaw

Legalization of possession of a plant so prolific it's farking nicknamed "weed"? Not so much. The consequences are *gasp* watching Animal Planet at 4:30 AM and *swoon* eating the whole damn bag of Funyuns.

Clearly, the message of Reefer Madness was lost on you. Pot is very bad, you know.

diamond2a: OregonVet: Very good headline. I noticed a lot of those anti-gun FARKers have settled down over the years on the role of gun ownership and protecting the massess from the government.

This is what did it for me, i used to think there was no good reason for most people to have firearms. Then after so many years of the Bush administrations 100 yard dash to fascism, i have thoroughly reconsidered.

I want to say you're wrong but I can't. I think I just made myself upset.

I'd rather fund better law enforcement here than pouring money down a shiathole in Iraq. Better doesn't mean just more of the same poorly trained people that are currently police officers.

Doesn't the military model for organizing a police force send the wrong message? I don't want cops who are stuck in a rigid way of thinking. Cops don't have to blindly follow orders; they're not in combat. Cops should be able to question what they're told to do.

EdgeRunner: Crosshair: Why not legalize drugs? You would save billions every year and raise large amounts of money that can be spent on rehab for people who want it by taxing them like alcohol.

Why not legalize everything? If everything's allowed, there's no crime at all, and we would save trillions by dismantling all those now-unnecessary law enforcement organizations. Plus I could blow up my neighbor's yappy dog with a suitcase nuke, and nobody could say anything about it.

(I read someplace that if suitcase nukes were legalized, 99% of the people wouldn't use them anyway, so most yappy dogs would be perfectly safe. Just not the ones near me.)

I am a victimless crime and am getting a kick out of your reply.

When McCain gets the A-list consultants, he'll be promising to put men on Mars, just like Junior and his daddy promised.

---

Whatever one thinks of Clinton, or of these policies, it must be pointed out that the Democrats' campaign slogan of 1996, "Promises made, promises kept," has a retrospective ring of truth to it. Sure, one can quibble here and there: The 100,000 cops actually amounted to something closer to 60,000... - The Atlantic magazine