Homeland security

And what does the NYCLU have to say about that? Do they go after the cops and the departments that chill us with chilling effects against our constitutional rights? I hope so. The battle has already been won in the courts. It’s not a matter of uncharted territory for the shitheads with badges. If they can comprehend middle school level English they can understand the laws and court rulings covering our rights that they are supposed to protect and uphold. I support the police until they violate and restrict constitutional rights. Then it’s FU and FTP. You don’t mess with our constitutional rights, and you especially don’t do it while wearing a badge and carrying a gun. At that point you’re the enemy and deserve no respect. You reap what you sow.

Is the NYCLU going after the pigheads that threaten us for taking legal pictures? I’ll become a card carrying ACLU/NYCLU member if they are.

I wish this were a simple thing.

It’s the line between security and freedom. You would not want al-quada photographing sites.

Aren’t you normally the “Anti-government oppression” dude on these forums?

You never heard the saying: The difference between a liberal and a conservative is one passenger jet attack on a WorldTradeCenter.

Saying used to be “one mugging.”

It is a simple thing.

Whether I want al-quada photographing sites is irrelevant. That’s like asking if I want Fred Phelps demonstrating at another funeral. I don’t want it, but I also will not ban or restrict his right to do so. Such is the price of free speech.

It is a freedom of speech issue. Public photography is protected under the First Amendment. Either you’re in favor of restricting the First Amendment or you are not. It is all rather simple when boiled down.

The First Amendment is fundamental in the US. We deal with it all the time. Yes, it can make things inconvenient at times when people say (or photograph) things we don’t like. But we do not ban or restrict that speech.

I would rather have a building blow up or a bridge blown up than have the First Amendment restricted in any way in the name of security. That is the price we pay in the US for having freedoms. Freedom has a price.

If some terrorist organization is planning an attack a ban on photography is not going to stop them or deter them. If they are indeed planning an attack they are certainly violating laws that they can be tracked and charged and investigated on. The bans on photography are not needed. Do real police work instead of relying on pseudo-security like photography bans.

Here’s an article I found:

NYC sued over right to shoot video, pictures in public

Like I should have the right to video record myself in a public place for my own security - to prove my actions and protect myself from crooked cops.

Preventing people from video recording or photographing a public place that could be a potential place of terrorism is not going to prevent the terrorists from getting the information they need to carry out an attack. The information is out there and video and cameras can easily be concealed to get any information.

Like John Childs said, it’s a violation of the first ammendment. Further, it’s a violation of the 4th ammendment.

we limit it when we don’t allow child porn. I’m sure you’re ok with that limit. Photography is NOT speech. It’s plotting.

The limit is on the exploitation of children, not the photography part. Having such photos is evidence of participating in the exploitation. The crime has already been committed.

Photos of a vulnerable target does not constitute a crime and could only be used as evidence against a terrorist plot if there is other supporting evidence.

Antiterrorism=antiphotography
Antiterrorism=antiphotography
Antiterrorism=antiphotography
Antiterrorism=antiphotographyAntiterrorism=antiphotographyAntiterrorism=antiphotographyAntiterrorism=antiphotographyAntiterrorism=antiphotographyAntiterrorism=antiphotography

The movement is growing and you cannot stop it. soon all cameras and cell phones with cameras will be confiscated at check points.

You will be jailed for possession of a camera, and you will have to repay your debt to society.

The first post in this thread really happened, and continues to happen everyday. Photographers are taken into custody and held until cleared of any threat.

Sounds like terrorism to me. The US government is a bigger terrorist organization than any al-qaeda group. It’s killed tens of thousands of it’s own people, and many from other nations. Further it terrorises it’s people and holds them at gunpoint if they do not hand over a huge portion of their money. There is hope though, if we can get our states to approve of the Liberty Amendment.

Some people think some of my views are extreme.

But this one seems to top any of mine.

Just to help me get a handle on it, Gilby, is this viewpoint of yours considered a conservative or liberal point of view?

Extreme? Any real position of wanting freedom, liberty, and prosperity is going to be considered extreme by today’s standard of an increasingly fascist government that uses the psychology of people’s deep ingrained beliefs, such as religion, to wrongly mislead and influence people for their own motives.

As for my statements. The US government kills a lot of it’s citizens. Thousands in war. Thousands in execution as capital punishment. Thousands by the FDA monopoly and other health restrictions and government imposed monopolies. The US has also killed many others as well. What’s the death toll in Iraq now? Over half a million? 2.5% of their population? “Iraqi Freedom” comes once everyone is dead I guess.

As for the gov stealing from us. That’s simply what income taxes are: Theft. Really no different from a robber holding a gun to your head and asking for all your money. Both thefts are by force with severe consequences. The only big difference is that the robber probably has a higher chance of needing it more. Regardless, theft is wrong, even by the government.

The thing is the political system is not two sided, right and left, or liberal and conservative. There’s more to the political spectrum, that separates the Ghandi from the Stalin. My views are that of freedom and abundant opportunity. My viewpoint is typically similar to classical liberalism, which is very different from what is considered liberal today in the US. My views today are more similar to that of the republican party than of the democratic party, though the republican party has made a mess of their party and is too fascist.

Are you saying the USA is an increasingly fascist government that uses the psychology of people’s deep ingrained beliefs, such as religion, to wrongly mislead and influence people for their own motives??!!

I know you like to use your credit cards to bankroll your friends, like the Republicans do, but do you also endorse spending beyond any other USA parties wildest dreams as if these debts will never have to be repaid (by taxes)?

Did your strong free speech ideas lead you to start these forums???

I favor a minimal government. What part of minimal do you not understand when it comes to spending?

Repaid by taxes? Taxes are just a con to control the people. Taxes are not needed. The people see that they are required to pay taxes and it’s become the status quo, so they demand from their government for it to be spent on them, and the government gets bigger and bigger. The government promises to lower taxes, but rarely does.

I guess I don’t underrstand this comment. How should roads be paid for? How should hospitals be reimbursed for people who can’t pay for healthcare? How should schools be paid for?

Usage fees and private funding.

If you didn’t have to pay taxes, what would you do with the extra 50% in take home money, or the extra 25 hours individuals used to comply with the tax code (or 20 hours per capita inclusive of individuals and businesses)?

Probably one of many things. Spend it to improve your personal well-being: your education, your health, your leisures. Fund the best programs in your community (large and small) that you see are needed: roads, schools, health, police, charities, etc. Or put it in savings for later use (though hopefully via investments to allow others to do good things right now with your otherwise unused resources). Those companies you choose to patronize will have incentive to fund programs that get the consumer to them, get the consumer to have money available to spend with them, and get the local worker pool hireable to be able to improve their company further.

Do we really need a government to forcefully take what we’ve earned and spend it how they see fit, on things that we don’t otherwise want our money used on? The objective of a government is to bring some organization to allow a community to voluntarily come together and use their resources efficiently. Taxes are by force and are an inefficient use. Individuals and companies that don’t contribute back to the community will be boycotted or end up in a community that is undesirable to be in.

the bigger police force to enforce “eminent domain,” and evict everyone.

Gilby: You got a cool idea here.

Let me get this straight.

IF all the drug cartel kingpins have a large gated community, even an island, they’d hire their own people to police the community.

They could even sell drugs to people who pull up by boat, or slide them thru a hole in the gate.

The gated community down the street could pay for their own garbage disposal, or if they run into budget problems, just let sanitation go. But they’re downwind of us.

And since you’re already “the body is my gated community, keep your laws off my body, legalize drugs and abortion” candidate [See United Gates of America thread], the guy who owns the road just became a crack head, and suddently there’s a huge increase in “usage fees.” And since the usage fees are going up in crack smoke, that road turns to crap.

But enterprising Gilby builds another road parallel to it, with a unicycle pathway, and part of the usage fee goes to pay for Gilby’s private police force, to arrest mis users and speeders who endanger unicyclists.

I think I can see something good come of this.

But someone else who owns the property where Gilby wants to build his road prefers her home, so Gilby must buy the government and the bigger police force to enforce “eminent domain,” and evict everyone.

But eminent domain abuse makes for an angry underprivileged group, so MORE of Gilby’s usage fees go to his private police force, to protect against terrorism. And we all understand, like our taxes for anti terrorism going into the pockets of Bush’s friends at Haliburton, Gilby’s usage fees get funneled into his friend’s pockets, but Gilby actually OWNS the security corps.

Could corruption come of this? Will the unicyclists lose their unicycle path? Is there a hole in Gilby’s system where all the good is leaking out? I want my unicycle path!!!

I could see spending money on tuition for kids’ schools, but how would you build and maintain roads privately? Tolls on every street in town? If not, who’s to stop rich f#cks like the president from using a road he didn’t pay for?

What about law enforcement? Paid for by a group or town meeting? Why would that be different from taxes?

Sorry, but you caught me in a tough week. No quarter asked or given.

Revolution anyone?
Free yourselves from your own repression! Clutch the ropes of power and take back your sky of freedom! Draw the curtain of repression and deciet and discover the truth of the world behind it, happiness, equality and love.

You shouldn’t trust me anyway :wink:

Do you really think that people would spend that extra money on education, health and “the best programs in the community”?! Honestly?! Maybe you would (right on for you) but I know that the majority of the people in the world are infact just going to whittle away the money on “leisure”.

AND

Where does your taxes go? It doesn’t go to you. It goes (or bloody should) to the poorest people in the “community”. Everyone pays for each other. If you have the ability to provide more for the “community” that other people, then you d*mn well should.

Democracy serves to provide for the poorest of the poor. If not them, then who? Alone, they cannot provide for themselves so your money is needed to help them provide for themselves (public schools, public hospitals-N/A in the US (you Fools.)) These are the principles that I remember my Dad teaching me when I was just a kiddie and although they’re badly articulated, they’re the principles of a society of brotherhood and Love.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
:wink: