We've Figured Him Out

[bodyman5001]

There is no guarantee of privacy in public places, IMO. You disagree. If you want to get your friends to outvote my friends, that's cool. That's the way the system works.

If you go out and break cameras, then you're merely costing yourself your freedom and money. At minimum, you're just costing taxpayers money when the camera is replaced.



Who would you rather have beat up drug dealers?

Ed O.

Would you care to find me a link that shows Las Vegas Metro Police waited for a public vote on installing these cameras?

 

[Ed O]

Here are some instances where some real violence went down. The horror

http://virtualology.com/revolutionarywarhall/

They were traitors. They were revolutionaries because they successfully overthrew the government that they betrayed... if they had not succeeded they probably would have been beheaded.

It doesn't mean that they were wrong, of course, but revolutions like those of the US are rare in world history and rarely result in a stable situation in the near term afterwards.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Would you care to find me a link that shows Las Vegas Metro Police waited for a public vote on installing these cameras?

No. You DO have publicly elected officials, right? So have it put to a vote.

Of course, you probably can't, because you're in a minority in terms of people who are actually motivated enough to vote against it.

I know that I merely visit Las Vegas, and I've done some crazy things in Vegas, but if I saw cameras on the street I would feel MORE safe, not violated.

Ed O.

 

[bodyman5001]

They were traitors. They were revolutionaries because they successfully overthrew the government that they betrayed... if they had not succeeded they probably would have been beheaded.

It doesn't mean that they were wrong, of course, but revolutions like those of the US are rare in world history and rarely result in a stable situation in the near term afterwards.

Ed O.

Absolutely. This goes to my theory on crime and punishment. You can do anything you want illegal or not. You have to be prepared to pay the price for doing so. I am not prepared to go to jail for smashing a camera. However, if I didn't have family and my girlfriend to think of and there weren't a thousand other things I could protest I might do it.

If I did, I could gain access to the courts and get the ACLU to fight it all the way. You know how the courts often throw you out because you haven't been harmed by something don't you?

The problem is that smashing that camera would be like throwing a 1 liter bottle of Aquafina on a forest fire.

 

[bodyman5001]

No. You DO have publicly elected officials, right? So have it put to a vote.

Of course, you probably can't, because you're in a minority in terms of people who are actually motivated enough to vote against it.

I know that I merely visit Las Vegas, and I've done some crazy things in Vegas, but if I saw cameras on the street I would feel MORE safe, not violated.

Ed O.

You would be a sucker then. Logic would help one realize that the cameras don't have every inch of Vegas covered. Criminals would likely be smart enough to wait out of view for unsuspecting suckers and pounce on them off camera.

Let's get silly and explore this for a second. What if you were in Vegas and weren't even drunk, but pissed your pants on camera? Shouldn't one reasonably expect that they could cover their wet pants with their jacket and sneak home with few if any people noticing?

Imagine that officer donkeycock just happened to zoom in on you and your little accident and then he decided to upload a copy on youtube.

Would you feel violated if people sang a song to you everywhere you went?

Like this....

Ed O. had to go
Couldn't hold it doh doh doh
Piggy saw it so so so
It's on the internet
Now we know

But hey, vote for whatever you want.

 

[Ed O]

Absolutely. This goes to my theory on crime and punishment. You can do anything you want illegal or not. You have to be prepared to pay the price for doing so. I am not prepared to go to jail for smashing a camera. However, if I didn't have family and my girlfriend to think of and there weren't a thousand other things I could protest I might do it.

So someone could break into my apartment and kill my cats, as long as they're willing to pay the fine and do the time? There's no moral obligation to follow laws?

It's admirable that you acknowledge that your disagreement with the law doesn't exclude you from being punished by the law, but it strikes me as sanctimonious that you believe that people who think cameras are a good idea ought to be applauding you for breaking the law.

If I did, I could gain access to the courts and get the ACLU to fight it all the way. You know how the courts often throw you out because you haven't been harmed by something don't you?

Yes. I know something of the law. Lack of standing is important, indeed.

It seems that the ACLU would have plenty of people to have as test cases against this kind of situation. I believe that the ACLU position is that there are no laws protecting privacy from video monitoring in public places, and while they might fight for your (by their admission illegal) actions, I'm not sure that they would want to waste time or resources to do so.

The problem is that smashing that camera would be like throwing a 1 liter bottle of Aquafina on a forest fire.

I think the problem actually is that people commit enough crime in that area that cameras aren't outrageous to most people.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

You would be a sucker then. Logic would help one realize that the cameras don't have every inch of Vegas covered. Criminals would likely be smart enough to wait out of view for unsuspecting suckers and pounce on them off camera.

If it's a choice between getting pounced on right then or maybe getting pounced on later, I'll always take the later pouncing, thank you.

Let's get silly and explore this for a second. What if you were in Vegas and weren't even drunk, but pissed your pants on camera? Shouldn't one reasonably expect that they could cover their wet pants with their jacket and sneak home with few if any people noticing?

Imagine that officer donkeycock just happened to zoom in on you and your little accident and then he decided to upload a copy on youtube.

Would you feel violated if people sang a song to you everywhere you went?

Like this....

Ed O. had to go
Couldn't hold it doh doh doh
Piggy saw it so so so
It's on the internet
Now we know

I think that would be hilarious, actually. I would not feel violated in the least. I can't think of anything happening to me in public that I would feel humiliated by suddenly showing up on YouTube.

But hey, vote for whatever you want.

I agree. Fortunately we can vote and we don't need to resort to breaking things when we think we're helping other people out.

Ed O.

 

[bodyman5001]

So someone could break into my apartment and kill my cats, as long as they're willing to pay the fine and do the time? There's no moral obligation to follow laws?

It's admirable that you acknowledge that your disagreement with the law doesn't exclude you from being punished by the law, but it strikes me as sanctimonious that you believe that people who think cameras are a good idea ought to be applauding you for breaking the law.



Yes. I know something of the law. Lack of standing is important, indeed.

It seems that the ACLU would have plenty of people to have as test cases against this kind of situation. I believe that the ACLU position is that there are no laws protecting privacy from video monitoring in public places, and while they might fight for your (by their admission illegal) actions, I'm not sure that they would want to waste time or resources to do so.



I think the problem actually is that people commit enough crime in that area that cameras aren't outrageous to most people.

Ed O.

Of course there isn't a moral obligation to follow laws if the only reason we have them is because you and enough people who think like you voted for them. One would have to require that people vote based on what to you is an obvious moral standard?????

How would you differentiate which laws one should follow due to a certain morality?

Murder...Immoral I would say
Rape...Immoral I would say
Tax evasion? Moral?
Speeding? Gray area?

I would guess that most people feel that suicide is immoral, yet you can do that any time you want. We might say you were depressed, so how could we blame you? We could fall back on the whole "Ed O. voted against it" reasoning.

If we all voted on a constitutional amendment that made it legal for people to eat their children's brains would you sit back and do nothing in the admittedly rare instance? You can't say it couldn't happen because a woman did just that recently.

What if we made it a law that unless you were a certified lifeguard you couldn't rescue someone who was drowning? Would I be wrong to be proud of saving someone even though I broke the law?

You can't seriously argue these points. I admit they are extreme and even ridiculous issues but holy crap knowing how liberals think I can almost see the lifeguard baloney coming some day.

I hate to be all sanctimonious and shit but I gotta go to bed now. later

 

[Ed O]

Of course there isn't a moral obligation to follow laws if the only reason we have them is because you and enough people who think like you voted for them. One would have to require that people vote based on what to you is an obvious moral standard?????

I'm not saying that laws should never be broken because of morality issues. I'm saying that, in my personal set of ethics, I give laws the benefit of the doubt. It's not purely a cost-benefit analysis, because I think that, morally, I have an obligation to society and I believe that I best fulfill that obligation by following its laws.

If I believe that a certain law exists differently de facto, rather than de jure, I am much less likely to follow it. Speeding 10 mph over the limit is one example of this. Speeding 100 mph over the limit is not.

How would you differentiate which laws one should follow due to a certain morality?

Murder...Immoral I would say
Rape...Immoral I would say
Tax evasion? Moral?
Speeding? Gray area?

Maybe I addressed that question above? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

I would guess that most people feel that suicide is immoral, yet you can do that any time you want. We might say you were depressed, so how could we blame you? We could fall back on the whole "Ed O. voted against it" reasoning.

I don't consider it immoral. I don't know how other people consider it, morally. I know that it is not--and never has been, in the US--illegal.

If we all voted on a constitutional amendment that made it legal for people to eat their children's brains would you sit back and do nothing in the admittedly rare instance? You can't say it couldn't happen because a woman did just that recently.

Why would we make that a law? Why would I want to live in a country where everyone but me thinks it's an OK idea?

I recently read a story. In ancient times an angel came to a man and told him that there would be a change, and that one day soon the rivers would stop flowing and everything would dry up and only stored water would remain pure. After a delay water would flow again and rains would fall, but that the water would be different and it would drive the drinker mad, along with erasing the memory of the stopped water flow.

The man stored water and told some others, but no one believed him. One day, sure enough, the rivers dried up and the people wandered around, thirsty. After some time, great rains came and the people drank... except the man, who had enough water to last the rest of his life.

He drank his own water and he felt fine, but he talked to others and they didn't remember the rivers going dry and they spoke differently. He was worried, but he was glad that he was still sane.

Unfortunately, everyone else thought he was crazy. He became lonely and frustrated... and one day took a drink of some water that was not his. He forgot about his water, he forgot about the dried-up river, and he forgot that he thought everyone else was mad. He fit in and he drank the new water the rest of his life.

The point? Being "sane" is, at some level, worthless.

If everyone thought eating their kids' brains was OK, what COULD I do? Kill the eaters of brains? Blow up buildings?

Maybe I'd move away. Or maybe I'd see the value in eating brains that everyone else did.

You can't seriously argue these points. I admit they are extreme and even ridiculous issues but holy crap knowing how liberals think I can almost see the lifeguard baloney coming some day.

I hate to be all sanctimonious and shit but I gotta go to bed now. later

I'm actually not liberal. Or not Liberal, at least. It's funny that you would think I am

Ed O.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Man, I really respected Ben Stein. He lost a lot of credibility with me. I looked at him more as a guy who would research things and then allow the truth to come out of his mouth. Half of what he said is pure right wing propoganda.

 

[bodyman5001]

I'm not saying that laws should never be broken because of morality issues. I'm saying that, in my personal set of ethics, I give laws the benefit of the doubt. It's not purely a cost-benefit analysis, because I think that, morally, I have an obligation to society and I believe that I best fulfill that obligation by following its laws.

If I believe that a certain law exists differently de facto, rather than de jure, I am much less likely to follow it. Speeding 10 mph over the limit is one example of this. Speeding 100 mph over the limit is not.



Maybe I addressed that question above? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.



I don't consider it immoral. I don't know how other people consider it, morally. I know that it is not--and never has been, in the US--illegal.



Why would we make that a law? Why would I want to live in a country where everyone but me thinks it's an OK idea?

I recently read a story. In ancient times an angel came to a man and told him that there would be a change, and that one day soon the rivers would stop flowing and everything would dry up and only stored water would remain pure. After a delay water would flow again and rains would fall, but that the water would be different and it would drive the drinker mad, along with erasing the memory of the stopped water flow.

The man stored water and told some others, but no one believed him. One day, sure enough, the rivers dried up and the people wandered around, thirsty. After some time, great rains came and the people drank... except the man, who had enough water to last the rest of his life.

He drank his own water and he felt fine, but he talked to others and they didn't remember the rivers going dry and they spoke differently. He was worried, but he was glad that he was still sane.

Unfortunately, everyone else thought he was crazy. He became lonely and frustrated... and one day took a drink of some water that was not his. He forgot about his water, he forgot about the dried-up river, and he forgot that he thought everyone else was mad. He fit in and he drank the new water the rest of his life.

The point? Being "sane" is, at some level, worthless.

If everyone thought eating their kids' brains was OK, what COULD I do? Kill the eaters of brains? Blow up buildings?

Maybe I'd move away. Or maybe I'd see the value in eating brains that everyone else did.



I'm actually not liberal. Or not Liberal, at least. It's funny that you would think I am

Ed O.

I don't think you are a Libroooool. I think you are crazy. Your water story made that point for both of us. You think I am crazy because I don't want to be watched by big brother constantly. To each their own I guess.

I would kill people that ate their children's brains. I would try and get them all before they got me. Maybe I am missing out and the brains are amazing to eat. Like Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction......

I'll never @#%$@#%$ know.

By the way, quit using words like de jure. I don't have a damn clue what that means, just inhaled a couple of pounds of bondo dust so I don't know if I ever did.

 

[Ed O]

By the way, quit using words like de jure. I don't have a damn clue what that means, just inhaled a couple of pounds of bondo dust so I don't know if I ever did.

Sorry. It's the counterpart of de facto... like what the law is on the books (de jure) versus how it actually works in real life (de facto).

As for eating brains: I don't think that I would. But I don't think that everyone else would be, either, so it's hard to put myself in that position.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There is no guarantee of privacy in public places, IMO. You disagree. If you want to get your friends to outvote my friends, that's cool. That's the way the system works.

If you go out and break cameras, then you're merely costing yourself your freedom and money. At minimum, you're just costing taxpayers money when the camera is replaced.



Who would you rather have beat up drug dealers?

Ed O.

Well, when we pull all the troops back home, we'll have a bunch of urban-warfare vets with nothing to do...

YAY ISOLATIONISM! Fix Us First!

 

[bodyman5001]

Sorry. It's the counterpart of de facto... like what the law is on the books (de jure) versus how it actually works in real life (de facto).

As for eating brains: I don't think that I would. But I don't think that everyone else would be, either, so it's hard to put myself in that position.

Ed O.

How come Judge Bitch...err, Judge Judy never says it? Or does she and I don't even know

 

[Denny Crane]

The day Ben Stein figures out anything will be the day 2 + 2 = 3

Socialism? Yeah, right, like Japan? Austria? Germany? Lichtenstein? Every industrialized country in the entire world, and many developing countries, has national health except the US, which has the most expensive healthcare in the world and is mediocre at best in every health index.

Ironically, the health plan explicitly rejects single payer health care like they have in all those "socalist" countries in favor of very capitalist insurance. Maybe there will be a public insurance option. Maybe.

The not so funny thing is that Obama's actual policies have been not even truly liberal, let alone socialist. Actual policies as opposed to the insane ravings of Stein, Limbaugh and Beck. Real liberals, as opposed to the imaginary demons, are getting pretty po'd at this president.

BTW, Obama is actually a Nazi. And he's a Muslim. And he's not really president because he was born on Mars. Or somewhere.

And white men are the sad victims of racism carried out by black men and Latinas. I mean, they only had 106 of 110 Supreme Court justices and 43 of 44 presidents. How oppressed can you get?

Rejecting single player health care... Either they're afraid they really will ruin the best system in the world, it's political suicide to do something so radical so fast (without reading the bills), or they figure the course of time will kill off the private sector industry.

Regarding Obama being a Nazi. I don't think so. But if his actual policies have not been even truly liberal let alone socialist, what are they? National Socialism sure does seem to fit (not talking atrocities and militantism, but more the health kick, rigid regulation/control of industries, the hint of socialism...).

No. It was clear from the time it was passed that it wasn't a "stimulus" package. It was a democrat spending package. It was also clear that it would not undo the "economic damage". A correction was imminent.

It has nothing to do with impatience. There is no expectation that this "stimulus" will help the economic situation. It was rushed through the house and senate, and 6 months later, almost none of it has been spent. It should be obvious to anybody paying attention that the wool was pulled over most Americans' eyes with the passing of the "stimulus" package. We, as taxpayers, should be demanding our money back.

This is quite accurate.

Stein is absolutely right. Obama's poll numbers are dropping like a rock, because Americans are finally waking up to who he really is--which is an extreme leftist. I thought that was clear during the election, but apparently a lot of people couldn't see it.

While I've been documenting the decline in Obama's job approval rating (down to 53% Gallup, 48% Rasmussen), I don't agree with your assessment here. It's not exactly clear it has as much to do with "who he really is -- an extreme leftist" as much as a few of other factors:
1) He's not feeding enough raw meat to his ATM, the loony left.
2) His policies are radical left (or right, for either the metaphor works) turns.
3) The people see enormous budgets and massive deficits and no progress in their own sphere of awareness.
4) The people see further massive spending on the horizon, but simply don't believe in the value of it.
5) The people are certainly to the right of Obama's policies and people that surround him.

And one could argue his ratings are declining because he's simply not getting things done. He's not leading congress to get things done on his timeline or even articulating a plan that congress is rubber stamping.

For everyone else:

I saw Beck on Fox this morning and he emphatically said those things about Obama. I thought it was over the top, but the blurb of an article posted in this thread about it doesn't put it at all into context. What Beck was saying was that Obama blindly assumed the white cop was in the wrong, without knowing the facts. He was mocking the more modern day civil rights leaders who play the race card at the drop of a hat, by dropping the race card himself. I didn't find it amusing or even all that well reasoned - he could have simply pointed out (like I did) about Obama blinding assuming the white cop was in the wrong...

I spend a lot of time fact checking things people write in threads of political nature. The only thing I see in Stein's article of any interest to me is his questioning of Obama's academic credentials. All the rest is rehashed and I've come to quite different conclusions (Rev. Wright isn't racist, he's leftist and anti-capitalist, for example).

Which leads to this:

Sure saying Obama isn't the savior isn't being chicken little. Saying our president is a racist, hates white people and that our freedom will be lost with him as president says chicken little all over it.

If the emperor has no clothes, someone has to come out and say it.


Finally, they put up cameras in Honolulu for a while and then took them down again after the people complained.

 

[PapaG]

How come Judge Bitch...err, Judge Judy never says it? Or does she and I don't even know

Because Ed's a lawyer using lawyer talk to drown out your argument.

 

[bodyman5001]

Because Ed's a lawyer using lawyer talk to drown out your argument.

I had a feeling. Must be weird when they start training you to be able to take any side of an argument based on who is paying.