Michael Ramirez for June 17, 2020

  1. Pat new 150
    Patjade  almost 4 years ago

    There goes Mike with the willful ignorance again.

     •  Reply
  2. Picture
    Ontman  almost 4 years ago

    Many folks don’t see ‘de-fund’, they see ‘un-fund’. Understand the difference before you pass judgement.

     •  Reply
  3. Celtic tree of life
    mourdac Premium Member almost 4 years ago

    Please stop acting totally stupid, Mr. Ramirez. It’s a reallocation of monies. Throwing your crap against the wall to distract isn’t helping the situation.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    walfishj  almost 4 years ago

    There are none so blind as they who will not see or hear That be you Sr. Ramirez.

     •  Reply
  5. Tf 117
    RAGs  almost 4 years ago

    Actually, what some cities need is to fire all of the current police and hire new ones with outside oversight on who they’re hiring, since the current departments refuse to weed out the “bad apples” on their own.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    Otis Rufus Driftwood  almost 4 years ago

    The real challenge is reversing the damage from the fifty-plus years that civil society has been getting dismantled. That will take everyone.

     •  Reply
  7. Homoerectus
    fusilier  almost 4 years ago

    Hey, nobody has problems with defunding public schools, or dams, or bridge maintenance, or environmental protections, or mine safety, or…

    fusilier

    James 2:24

     •  Reply
  8. Covid
    Librarylady  almost 4 years ago

    Still need serious reform. Stricter selection criterion. Treat policing as a profession: More comprehensive training and education, perhaps including psychology and sociology courses, classes covering the history of policing, definitely de-escalation; changing the language referring to peace keeping (law enFORCEment, police FORCE); regular paid leaves of absence for more education, volunteering in the community where s/he works, therapy for the stress of policing, etc.; use other organizations to answer 911 calls… not always a police issue.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    The Love of Money is . . .  almost 4 years ago

    Every time our Climate Denier-In- Chief opens his mouth we get another Snow Job.

    Don’t worry when in heats up on November 3rd it will melt. Just like Covid-19 did in April.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    Ivan Araque  almost 4 years ago

    Very few Americans think we should defund the police. However, we deserve and have a right to hold them Accountable.

     •  Reply
  11. Minifig2
    Aliquid  almost 4 years ago

    Actually de-funding crime makes total sense. A lot of crime is about making a profit. Especially organized crime. Remove their ability to make a profit, and everything falls apart.

    For example, if you legalize and control the supply of drugs, then the whole business model of the drug cartels collapses.

     •  Reply
  12. Agent gates
    Radish the wordsmith  almost 4 years ago

    Demilitarize the police. Police enforce the law, if you don’t like what they are doing change the law.

     •  Reply
  13. Fighting irish hood auto decal 2000x
    ndblackirish97  almost 4 years ago

    I mean these police departments need all that military gear; especially, in small population communities. That town of 20,000 people really needed their sheriff department to have an MRAP military assault vehicle. Big cities like NYC need Hummers for the pending zombie apocalypse or Avenger style alien invasion. Lets not reallocate (defund) that money to other resources that can augment law enforcement to handle mental health, domestic violence, and homeless incidents. Priorities, Conservatives! Where’s your priorities?!

     •  Reply
  14. Tor johnson
    William Bednar Premium Member almost 4 years ago

    What makes no sense is regarding some people as inferior for no other reason that the color of their skin.

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    Chris H  almost 4 years ago

    I wonder how many social workers could be paid for the cost of one military surplussed armored personnel carrier.

     •  Reply
  16. Picture
    RalphConti  almost 4 years ago

    Defunding crime makes great sense. Ramirez probably never heard of Prohibition as conservatives have notoriously short memories and avoid studying history. Prohibition funded organized crime, fueling it to grow to greater heights than it could ever have achieved otherwise. Furthermore, we have seen that other factors than police activity have been affective in reducing crime. And of course, it seems we can’t say it enough that defunding the police makes good sense; but you have to think to understand instead of just reacting to the term.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    ferddo  almost 4 years ago

    How is the U.S. funding crime? Are you talking about lobbyists in DC?

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    bob  almost 4 years ago

    Why did protesters choose “defund” over “reform”?

     •  Reply
  19. Img 0090
    Another Take  almost 4 years ago

    Oh joy, another ‘defund police’ effort from ramirez. Nothing new? Maybe how West Point sprayed PAM on the ramp? No?

     •  Reply
  20. Eagle c 001 duo
    Kentucky Ken Premium Member almost 4 years ago

    Oh, Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. You don’t get what “defund” means. Find someone who can explain it to you in simple terms using simple, understandable words. Some of the comments on this page can help. And, to move things along, softly chant “I can do it! I can do it!” Attaboy!

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    DrDon1  almost 4 years ago

    Ramirez majored in ’Law Enforcment & Criminal Justice at Trump University!

     •  Reply
  22. Photo
    VadimUzdensky1  almost 4 years ago

    Just on face value. Defunding the police is actually something that you can do. The city can allocate less money to the police department, and more to social services. Crime, on the other hand, is not funded by the government, so those funds cannot be taken away.

     •  Reply
  23. 150 funny avatar 1734 www.free avatars.com
    barracuda154  almost 4 years ago

    I always love how so many have the answer, but don’t understand the question. By underfunded the police it will cost more in the long run to cover operations. Overtime is big part of the police budget. So with less funds to have for normal operations that means the more officers will have to work overtime to cover patrols, court, and other admin duties. The police, fire dept and EMT are first responders for a reason. They are call out first to check on the situation and then defer it to other department as needed. So how long will the social worker or any other enjoy being call out to a domestic at 3 AM to deal with a drunk husband and wife. After the first time, they tell you to sent the cops first and then deal with in the morning. Not even the fire dept or EMT will go into some areas until the scene is secured by police. If you think that re assign funds is going work then please put your money where your mouth is and show it how it done. Good Luck you’ll need it.

     •  Reply
  24. Guitar
    kilioopu  almost 4 years ago

    “Defund the police” doesn’t quite have the same impact as, say, “Three Strikes and You’re Out” (which was one of the most damaging political movements in my lifetime). Perhaps, though, an ambiguously worded statement will generate discussion and lead to reform.

     •  Reply
  25. Agent gates
    Radish the wordsmith  almost 4 years ago

    Funding the police is Socialism.

     •  Reply
  26. Triumph
    Daeder  almost 4 years ago

    Defund crime? What a great idea! It’s about time we finally punished Il Douche for his emoluments violations!

     •  Reply
  27. Brain guy dancing hg clr
    Concretionist  almost 4 years ago

    Actually, it makes sense on both sides. You have a gang of people being a problem: Take away their source of funding. And of course, it’s straight out of the GOP handbook: They think big government is a problem so they try to defund it with tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy. Doesn’t work there, but cops and criminals (well, most  criminals) don’t print their own money.

     •  Reply
  28. Kernel
    Diane Lee Premium Member almost 4 years ago

    Actually we can do quite a bit to defund crime. President Herbert Hoover’s 1928 “noble experiment” failed miserably.On the whole, the initial economic effects of Prohibition were largely negative. The closing of breweries, distilleries and saloons led to the elimination of thousands of jobs, and in turn thousands more jobs were eliminated for barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and other related trades.At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward.The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans who were tempted by the inflated profits of illegal activity. The trade in unregulated alcohol had serious consequences for public health. As the trade in illegal alcohol became more lucrative, the quality of alcohol on the black market declined. On average, 1000 Americans died every year during the ProhibitionThe effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era. The jails and courts were overflowing with demanding time that could have been devoted to other crimes.

     •  Reply
  29. Kernel
    Diane Lee Premium Member almost 4 years ago

    Now, we need to learn the lesson of prohibition. Cops are spending too much time fighting the drug war. Instead, legalize everything. Let the drug companies produce it. Sell it at cost plus taxes. If the drug lords come up with something popular on the street, legalize and produce that too. History shows that taking the “naughty” factor out of it actually decreases use. Allow sales in bars, pharmacies, so their revenues increase. People gonna do what people gonna do. Give up the “drug war”, reap the tax rewards, cut down on the number of people we are having to feed in jails and put a whole lot of drug dealers out of business, while their profits go to better causes.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez