NationStates Jolt Archive

In these days spent under the threat of wacko terrorists blowing up the nearest megamart, bus station or your neighbor's house... do you favor privacy or safety? Discuss.

This is apropos:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163870,00.html

It's Neil Cavuto. He has a big head. hehe

Privacy. The safety thing just leads to a Big Brother society where virtually anything can be justified.

Bad juju. Bart no like.

I dont have a problem with placing cameras around the place. If you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Its not as if you are going to have cameras placed in your bedroom or anything, its in public places where people can see you anyway! Why does it matter who they are? People want loads more police on the streets - Why is this any different? Instead of a camera that you dont notice, you have a person watching everything right where you can see him/her.

Privacy. The safety thing just leads to a Big Brother society where virtually anything can be justified.

Bad juju. Bart no like.

I see where you are coming from but I hardly see why we wouldnt resist more extreme measures of Big Brother government. Anyway, while we debate it, the cameras are already there! We are resisting extreme measures as it is.

I dont have a problem with placing cameras around the place. If you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Its not as if you are going to have cameras placed in your bedroom or anything, its in public places where people can see you anyway! Why does it matter who they are? People want loads more police on the streets - Why is this any different? Instead of a camera that you dont notice, you have a person watching everything right where you can see him/her.

agreed.

I dont have a problem with placing cameras around the place. If you arent doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Its not as if you are going to have cameras placed in your bedroom or anything, its in public places where people can see you anyway! Why does it matter who they are? People want loads more police on the streets - Why is this any different? Instead of a camera that you dont notice, you have a person watching everything right where you can see him/her.

There are those of us who think that there should be way less police on the streets. Don't even get me started with this cameras nonsense.

Safety every time. As I seee it, it's all very well having all your freedoms, until you get blown up in the street by some bloke who has a grudge against your country. If you die free, you're still dead, after all. Besides, for all those people who thinks we're so damn free: we're not allowed to even express opinions that the liberal types find uncongenial (the British Empire? A force for the good? Heaven forbid!), we're not allowed to defend our own property against criminals (sorry, if he breaks into your house and doesn't attack you you can't do much to him - wouldn't want to impinge his human rights), we're not allowed to smoke in public places (which I find particularly silly, and I'm an asthmatic!), and we're discouraged from expressing our own indigenous culture lest we offend someone else's. Hardly freedom, old boy.

There are those of us who think that there should be way less police on the streets. Don't even get me started with this cameras nonsense.

can I ask why?

"Terrorists"? Don't you mean freedom-fighters?

I can only choose security, for security includes privacy.

can I ask why?

Think of it this way: One very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control is better than a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline (read: lots of unnecessary shootings).

I don't know if we'll get all the London bombers, but I suspect we will, and when we do, I suspect camera images of them will be the reason.
"We"? Is this guy British? Is he involved in law enforcement? Where does he get the idea that "he" is going to be involved in "getting" the London bombers?

All the cameras in the world won't make you safe. They won't prevent someone from mugging you. They won't get the police there before you are murdered. They won't stop the fanatical freedom-fighters.

It's the illusion of safety.

In all honesty I don't mind those cameras. I don't have them in my house and they tend to up the rate of criminals caught. Also, the only crime I really commit being petty theft (almost impossible to prevent or detect) they don't fuss me.

I went for privacy. These cameras don't inflict damage to that and in all honesty if you can't stand for freedom you can't stand for anything.

Think of it this way: One very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control is better than a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline (read: lots of unnecessary shootings).

i'd rather have a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline, but no guns. And some very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control, guns optional

i'd rather have a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline, but no guns. And some very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control, guns optional

No guns for any of them would be best, in my opinion.

There are those of us who think that there should be way less police on the streets. Don't even get me started with this cameras nonsense.

This will lead to more crime if we have less police. Less police=less protection. If this happens, the Gun sales will go up because people will want to protect themselves from the rif raf.

Think of it this way: One very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control is better than a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline (read: lots of unnecessary shootings).

Read: More crime on the streets.

I choose safety. I don't mind cameras in public. Look at every department store and grocery story. They have cameras everywhere looking for shoplifters. So its not like we don't have this already. Put the cameras on the streets though I don't know how much added protection it'll have.

This will lead to more crime if we have less police. Less police=less protection. If this happens, the Gun sales will go up because people will want to protect themselves from the rif raf.
Contrary to popular belief, police do not prevent crimes. They arrest people *after* they have commited crimes.

Contrary to popular belief, police do not prevent crimes. They arrest people *after* they have commited crimes.

Exactly.

No guns for any of them would be best, in my opinion.

yeah i agree. But if the criminals have guns, not so common in europe i know, i like the policemen to be able to shoot back. or at least in a position to call on policemen with the necessary training.

No guns for any of them would be best, in my opinion.

Then a crook with a gun will just blow the officer away because the cop is unarmed. Nice. Cop deaths are liable to go up because of this.

Contrary to popular belief, police do not prevent crimes. They arrest people *after* they have commited crimes.

maybe. But knowing that your more likely to be caught on camera, might make you less likely to commit the crime.

Contrary to popular belief, police do not prevent crimes. They arrest people *after* they have commited crimes.

But at least you still have cops on the streets to assist. If you lower the number of cops, your going to have lower protection rates. And I never said anything about preventing crime did I?

Safety every time. As I seee it, it's all very well having all your freedoms, until you get blown up in the street by some bloke who has a grudge against your country. If you die free, you're still dead, after all.Yes - 'freedom' isn't much use if you're dead. I really don't see what the big problem is. If you're out in public, you can be seen. It's not like any attempts are being made to spy on your every move in your own house.

Contrary to popular belief, police do not prevent crimes. They arrest people *after* they have commited crimes.

The idea is that police deter crime by their very presence, and so crime will not be as problematic because more people will be intimidated in to not commiting crime.

Then a crook with a gun will just blow the officer away because the cop is unarmed. Nice. Cop deaths are liable to go up because of this.

Maybe I should rephrase that: Guns, in this place, would be completely illegal.

Yeah, go ahead and bring up that "but, all the criminals will obtain firearms from the black market!" argument. Yeah, don't even acknowledge better port security :rolleyes:.

The idea is that police deter crime by their very presence, and so crime will not be as problematic because more people will be intimidated in to not commiting crime.Also, a number of police services here in the UK do have crime prevention schemes in place. They run courses for the public in the best ways to prevent crimes against them. They may not actually physically prevent crimes themselves, but they do encourage awareness. Greater numbers of them make the public feel more protected, enable greater participation in things like these and create more resources to deal with crime after it has happened.

Maybe I should rephrase that: Guns, in this place, would be completely illegal.

Good luck with that. Crooks will still get the guns regardless if they're illegal or not.

Yeah, go ahead and bring up that "but, all the criminals will obtain firearms from the black market!" argument. Yeah, don't even acknowledge better port security :rolleyes:.

:rolleyes: Your very naive when it comes to guns and who actually obtains them and how they obtain them. There is more than one way to slip guns into a country Potaria.

Good luck with that. Crooks will still get the guns regardless if they're illegal or not.

Correct. Still, gun crimes have a lot more to do with these people having little to no opportunity for a better life. I still say this country would be better without firearms.

:rolleyes: Your very naive when it comes to guns and who actually obtains them and how they obtain them. There is more than one way to slip guns into a country Potaria.

So, I'm naive because I mention just one way to get firearms into a country unnoticed? Oh yeah, you're one of those "all LIBERALS (have to make that sound as nasty a word as possible, you know) are stupid" people.

Privacy. The safety thing just leads to a Big Brother society where virtually anything can be justified.

Bad juju. Bart no like.

You really shouldnt make references to 1984 without understanding how Big Brother came about. Once the regional society of 1984 reached the great enlightenment, then Big Brother came about. Here is why the US will never turn into a Big Brother scenario. It is improbable that entire regions would unite together and reach enlightenment when all the countries are caught up in politics. The Big Brother Scenario won't happen. The US has already pissed off enough countries. Its not like these countries will suddenly join forces and reach enlightenment. THe US also has safeguards built into the constitution prohibiting that. Yes, the PATRIOT Act has severly limited some of them, but most of these precaution were in response to Sept. 11 and will "sunset" or expire by the end of this year. I definetely prefer safety because that is what this country has been. A place of safety and refuge for all those willing to seek it.

Good luck with that. Crooks will still get the guns regardless if they're illegal or not.



:rolleyes: Your very naive when it comes to guns and who actually obtains them and how they obtain them. There is more than one way to slip guns into a country Potaria.
And you explain the lower amount of fire arm related deaths per capita how?

But at least you still have cops on the streets to assist. If you lower the number of cops, your going to have lower protection rates. And I never said anything about preventing crime did I?
You drew a direct connection between the number of police and the amount of crime: "This will lead to more crime if we have less police." So yes, you did.

There are those of us who think that there should be way less police on the streets. Don't even get me started with this cameras nonsense.

I cant believe that you want way less police on the streets. WTF! Lets just think about your idea. With less police there is more crime and no way for the government to find terrorists which they are already having a hard time finding anyhow. If you are really bent on having less police then you should move to some socialist scandinavian country. There is way less police so you can die in a horrible terrorist attack while here in the US we're sitting comfortably laughing at the absurdity that is less police.

Correct. Still, gun crimes have a lot more to do with these people having little to no opportunity for a better life. I still say this country would be better without firearms.

Only way to do that is pass an amendment revoking the 2nd amendment. Guess what? That will have no hope of passing. So guns will remain legal in the US!

So, I'm naive because I mention just one way to get firearms into a country unnoticed? Oh yeah, you're one of those "all LIBERALS (have to make that sound as nasty a word as possible, you know) are stupid" people.

Nope! Don't think that at all. Nice cover up though.

The idea is that police deter crime by their very presence, and so crime will not be as problematic because more people will be intimidated in to not commiting crime.
This is a reasonable assumption, however unrealistic. The police cannot be everywhere, there is more often than not enough funding to have patrols roaming the streets basically doing nothing but showing themselves, and it's more for the public's peace of mind than the criminal's fear.

It's the illusion of safety, again.

You drew a direct connection between the number of police and the amount of crime: "This will lead to more crime if we have less police." So yes, you did.

Nope. I just said the word protection. I can call 911 and have a cop here in about 5 minutes. If you have less police, the waiting time will increase. We're already seeing a waiting time on ambulance services because we don't have enough of those. If we hack our police force, the waiting time will increase as well. We need MORE cops on the street. If we have more cops on the streets, the waiting time will shrink.

Think of it this way: One very well-trained officer with great discipline and self-control is better than a lot of officers with less training and "good" discipline (read: lots of unnecessary shootings).

You provide no evidence suggesting that less police means more training. In fact, it is the other way around. All police have to go through rigorous training before allowed to actually patrol. So more police means more weel trained officers finding and preventing terrorists and their attacks.

You provide no evidence suggesting that less police means more training. In fact, it is the other way around. All police have to go through rigorous training before allowed to actually patrol. So more police means more weel trained officers finding and preventing terrorists and their attacks.

Huh? You interpreted it wrong. I don't mean that by having fewer police, they will automaticall be better-trained. I'm saying fewer, more highly-trained officers are better than what we have at the present time.

Terrorist attacks? Hahahaha.

All the cameras in the world won't make you safe. They won't prevent someone from mugging you. They won't get the police there before you are murdered. They won't stop the fanatical freedom-fighters.

It's the illusion of safety.

Im sorry, but that is just dumb. If police and other law enforcement agencies can identify terrorists through the use of cameras, then they know which terrorists to look for and can find them before they commit attacks. Cameras do help because instead of have thousands of police officers to patrol everywhere, one camera can identify any number oif terrorists in a given crowd of people.

Correct. Still, gun crimes have a lot more to do with these people having little to no opportunity for a better life. I still say this country would be better without firearms.

No, the people who commit those crimes are irresponsible criminals. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to commit crimes; there are millions of poor people who have no hope of a better life but don't commit crimes.

The people who commit gun crimes are nothing more than criminals who failed in normal life and have to resort to crime to pay for their irresponsibility. They aren't stealing food, or something they need to survive.

Only way to do that is pass an amendment revoking the 2nd amendment. Guess what? That will have no hope of passing. So guns will remain legal in the US!



Nope! Don't think that at all. Nice cover up though.

1: Sad, isn't it?

2: Could've fooled me.

3: Cover up?

No guns for any of them would be best, in my opinion.

so I guess we should throw flowers at the terrorists to make them stop. Yeah, that'll really get things done!

No, the people who commit those crimes are irresponsible criminals. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to commit crimes; there are millions of poor people who have no hope of a better life but don't commit crimes.

The people who commit gun crimes are nothing more than criminals who failed in normal life and have to resort to crime to pay for their irresponsibility. They aren't stealing food, or something they need to survive.

Then, why is it that so many criminals are from ghettos and other poor neighborhoods?

You rarely, if ever, see a plainsuit pulling out a gun to mug somebody.

1: Sad, isn't it?

Nope!

2: Could've fooled me.

I listen to everyone! Even those that drive me up a wall.

3: Cover up?

Yep. Not hard to see that you tried to cover up your statement.

so I guess we should throw flowers at the terrorists to make them stop. Yeah, that'll really get things done!

Xenophobe, eh?

Our own citizens have killed more people over the years than terrorists have...

Nope. I just said the word protection. I can call 911 and have a cop here in about 5 minutes. If you have less police, the waiting time will increase. We're already seeing a waiting time on ambulance services because we don't have enough of those. If we hack our police force, the waiting time will increase as well. We need MORE cops on the street. If we have more cops on the streets, the waiting time will shrink.
Prevention is the only real protection. If cops are responding to a 911, a crime is already in progress.

They might arrest the criminal after the fact, but they do not protect you from the crime happening.

Nope!



I listen to everyone! Even those that drive me up a wall.



Yep. Not hard to see that you tried to cover up your statement.

1: Ehh. To each his own, I suppose.

2: You may listen, but you're not hearing any of it.

3: Where exactly did I "cover up" my statement? I stated that I just listen one way guns could be smuggled into a country. One.

Huh? You interpreted it wrong. I don't mean that by having fewer police, they will automaticall be better-trained. I'm saying fewer, more highly-trained officers are better than what we have at the present time.

Terrorist attacks? Hahahaha.

No I didn't. You are advocating a policy that says that we should just train the police better. But you never answer my comments that say police all have to go to rigorous training. The Police are trained just fine. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary (im talking about actual evidence and not theoretical).

And what do you mean by "terrorist attacks? Hahahaha." Do you think that thousands of inocent poeople dying is funny. You're even worse than I thought.

This is a reasonable assumption, however unrealistic. The police cannot be everywhere, there is more often than not enough funding to have patrols roaming the streets basically doing nothing but showing themselves, and it's more for the public's peace of mind than the criminal's fear.

It's the illusion of safety, again.

It's not the number of police, but rather their effectiveness that acts as a deterrent. A massive police force that is either inefficent or poorly trained is not as effective as a moderate sized force of effective and well trained officers. It's the number of people caught and convicted that acts as a deterrent, as well as the officers' behavior during arrests.

More per capita police =/= lower crime, but more effective police=lower crime. That's why many police states have severe crime problems, because their forces are very ineffective.

Prevention is the only real protection. If cops are responding to a 911, a crime is already in progress.

They might arrest the criminal after the fact, but they do not protect you from the crime happening.

By responding and arresting the perp, they are (in effect) protecting the rest of the civilians by removing the crook off the street. It isn't that hard to figure out.

On top of that, you are also protecting the person that made the call. I'll let you figure that one out.

No I didn't. You are advocating a policy that says that we should just train the police better. But you never answer my comments that say police all have to go to rigorous training. The Police are trained just fine. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary (im talking about actual evidence and not theoretical).

And what do you mean by "terrorist attacks? Hahahaha." Do you think that thousands of inocent poeople dying is funny. You're even worse than I thought.

1: Look up civilian deaths by police shootings in Harris county.

2: Wow, along with misinterpreting posts, you take things way out of context. I suppose that's to be expected.

Im sorry, but that is just dumb. If police and other law enforcement agencies can identify terrorists through the use of cameras, then they know which terrorists to look for and can find them before they commit attacks. Cameras do help because instead of have thousands of police officers to patrol everywhere, one camera can identify any number oif terrorists in a given crowd of people.
And how do they stop the unidentifable freedom-fighters? What if it's a freedom-fighter not in their database? OMB! Do you realise how many people there are in the world, and each one of them could be a freedom-fighter just waiting to blow you up?

Be afraid, be very afraid....

:)

Xenophobe, eh?

Our own citizens have killed more people over the years than terrorists have...

How dare you call me a xenophobe! You have no basis for this accusation. I am only pointing out a MAJOR flaw in your perfect little world. If police dont have guns, then terrorists can just walk over them and the police can do nothing about that. I am sorry, but guns are essential to law enforcement.

1: Ehh. To each his own, I suppose.

Sorry but I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary.

2: You may listen, but you're not hearing any of it.

Again not true.

3: Where exactly did I "cover up" my statement? I stated that I just listen one way guns could be smuggled into a country. One.

Yep but you implied the fact that you only ment one way in your post. You said and I quote "Tighter port security" This implied that only guns come in through ports. When I pointed that out, you then stated that I only mentioned one way. Yep that's a cover up. I pointed out something that was implied in your post and then you changed what you ment.

Cameras do help because instead of have thousands of police officers to patrol everywhere, one camera can identify any number oif terrorists in a given crowd of people.
Yeah, like that guy in England who was shot for wearing a long overcoat and being foreign.

And how do they stop the unidentifable freedom-fighters? What if it's a freedom-fighter not in their database? OMB! Do you realise how many people there are in the world, and each one of them could be a freedom-fighter just waiting to blow you up?

Be afraid, be very afraid....

:)

OooOoOOoooOoh! The nasty, EVIL freedom fighters are going to get YOU! HIDE UNDER YOUR BED!!!

:D

Give me privacy every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'd rather live in a dangerous but free country than a safe police state any day!!!!!

How dare you call me a xenophobe! You have no basis for this accusation. I am only pointing out a MAJOR flaw in your perfect little world. If police dont have guns, then terrorists can just walk over them and the police can do nothing about that. I am sorry, but guns are essential to law enforcement.

Again with the "terrorist" nonsense?

Our MILITARY deals with "terrorists". Not our police force.

1: Look up civilian deaths by police shootings in Harris county.

Now this is rich. Very very rich. What STATE? I lay ya 3-1 odds the police shot in self defense in most of those instances.

2: Wow, along with misinterpreting posts, you take things way out of context. I suppose that's to be expected.

Is it just me or is this a typical Liberal response?

Our MILITARY deals with "terrorists". Not our police force.

Interesting. Clinton dealt with terrorism by our police force and not by our Military. Now we have Bush who is dealing with terrorist via military and not by police. Which is better?

Sorry but I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary.



Again not true.



Yep but you implied the fact that you only ment one way in your post. You said and I quote "Tighter port security" This implied that only guns come in through ports. When I pointed that out, you then stated that I only mentioned one way. Yep that's a cover up. I pointed out something that was implied in your post and then you changed what you ment.

1: Hmm. Good point.

2: I see. Shall we go on longer, and see who tires of this first?

3: No, I simply stated one of the most frequently-used methods for illegaly transporting firearms into the country. I stated You only mentioned one way? When did this occur, hmm?

4: I never changed what I meant. You only changed it in your mind, because you tried to put me in a corner and it didn't quite go as planned.

And how do they stop the unidentifable freedom-fighters? What if it's a freedom-fighter not in their database? OMB! Do you realise how many people there are in the world, and each one of them could be a freedom-fighter just waiting to blow you up?

Be afraid, be very afraid....

:)

To answer your question, I would say that Cameras are only one tool in an arsenal of many weapons used against these "freedom fighters." Increased secirty measures at our borders and airports also ensure that no terrorists come in the country. That is how you solvbe unidentifiables. Also, do you realize how long the CIA has been around? Long enough to know thousands of "Freedom Fighters" that they have put in their databases.

Also, the fact that you call terrorists "freedom fighters" is absolutely astonishing and supports the terrorist ideals. If you've followed the news since Sept. 11, the terrorists you speak of are a fundementalist group that is misinterpreting their religion. Also, the US isnt controlling countries to give cause for terrorist attacks.

1: Look up civilian deaths by police shootings in Harris county.

2: Wow, along with misinterpreting posts, you take things way out of context. I suppose that's to be expected.

Only one example is not good enough to substantiate a claim that all of the police were undertrained.

Okay, I might have taken things out of context with my las statement, but still you should explain why you said "Terrorist Attacks...hahaha".

1: Hmm. Good point.

Thank you! :D

2: I see. Shall we go on longer, and see who tires of this first?

Why not :p

3: No, I simply stated one of the most frequently-used methods for illegaly transporting firearms into the country. I stated You only mentioned one way? When did this occur, hmm?

Look at your own statements. You only implied one way of getting guns into this country and I called ya on it then you tried to redo your statement in your next post in reply to mine. It didn't work because I already caught ya.

4: I never changed what I meant. You only changed it in your mind, because you tried to put me in a corner and it didn't quite go as planned.

Actually, your reply tried to change it and it didn't work.

I'll take privacy over safety any day of the week. A couple of reasons, what is the point in being safe if you don't have liberty? One, if not the most important aspects of freedom IS privacy. Second the odds of you being caught in a terrorist attack, well you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus. The government only does these things to keep the populace in a siege mentality and to make things seem worse than they are. Because that's exactly what is and has been happening.

Yeah, like that guy in England who was shot for wearing a long overcoat and being foreign.

But that wasnt in the US. I think that we can all agree that the English are crazy.

Thank you! :D



Why not :p



Look at your own statements. You only implied one way of getting guns into this country and I called ya on it then you tried to redo your statement in your next post in reply to mine. It didn't work because I already caught ya.



Actually, your reply tried to change it and it didn't work.

3: No, I just mentioned one way of getting illegal firearms into the country. My reply backed that up quite well. You're just pissed because you misread it and tried to box me in.

I'll take privacy over safety any day of the week. A couple of reasons, what is the point in being safe if you don't have liberty? One, if not the most important aspects of freedom IS privacy. Second the odds of you being caught in a terrorist attack, well you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus. The government only does these things to keep the populace in a siege mentality and to make things seem worse than they are. Because that's exactly what is and has been happening.

I don't think Mr. Franklin would be pleased with some of the posters in this thread.

3: No, I just mentioned one way of getting illegal firearms into the country. My reply backed that up quite well. You're just pissed because you misread it and tried to box me in.

You did a pretty good job of boxing yourself!

By responding and arresting the perp, they are (in effect) protecting the rest of the civilians by removing the crook off the street. It isn't that hard to figure out.

On top of that, you are also protecting the person that made the call. I'll let you figure that one out.
They are not protecting YOU though; or your idea of protection is to have a crime commited against you. If he's a "perp" then he has "perpetrated" a crime.

Your argument that others are protected from future crimes is redundant, since there is no reason to say that criminal will commit future crimes.

You did a pretty good job of boxing yourself!

Really...

This is getting ridiculous.

Give me privacy every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'd rather live in a dangerous but free country than a safe police state any day!!!!!

Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you really want to live dangerously, go live in Iraq for a while. You might change your mind. Personally, Id like to live in a place where we can feel safe stepping out of our front door step. Also, your taking the extreme. The US isn't nor will it ever be a police state. Alert me when the government is overthrown and the police control the country. Then i will retract that statement!

Really...

This is getting ridiculous.

For once, I agree with you.

Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you really want to live dangerously, go live in Iraq for a while. You might change your mind. Personally, Id like to live in a place where we can feel safe stepping out of our front door step. Also, your taking the extreme. The US isn't nor will it ever be a police state. Alert me when the government is overthrown and the police control the country. Then i will retract that statement!

Iraq's not a free country. You lose.

Iraq's not a free country. You lose.

Funny. Last I heard, Iraq was a soveriegn nation. Controlling their own affairs. How precisely is it not free?

To answer your question, I would say that Cameras are only one tool in an arsenal of many weapons used against these "freedom fighters." Increased secirty measures at our borders and airports also ensure that no terrorists come in the country. That is how you solvbe unidentifiables. Also, do you realize how long the CIA has been around? Long enough to know thousands of "Freedom Fighters" that they have put in their databases.

Also, the fact that you call terrorists "freedom fighters" is absolutely astonishing and supports the terrorist ideals. If you've followed the news since Sept. 11, the terrorists you speak of are a fundementalist group that is misinterpreting their religion. Also, the US isnt controlling countries to give cause for terrorist attacks.
Again, it is the illusion of safety you talk of, not actually being safe.

I do not in any way endorse or support the actions of fanatical freedom-fighters.

Funny. Last I heard, Iraq was a soveriegn nation. Controlling their own affairs. How precisely is it not free?

Well, given the fact that it's war-torn and in a political haze...

I do not in any way endorse or support the actions of fanatical freedom-fighters.

Then why aren't you calling freedom-fighters, terrorists? They are terrorists and nothing more.

Iraq's not a free country. You lose.

Regardless, it does give you an example of a dangerous lifestyle.
Also you concede that the US is not a police state. Silence is concession! Hahahahaha I win and you lose, sucker!

Well, given the fact that it's war-torn and in a political haze...

US is a war-torn nation as is Britain and other nations but we're free. Iraq is a free and independant nation now.

Funny. Last I heard, Iraq was a soveriegn nation. Controlling their own affairs. How precisely is it not free?
Well, for one thing, they have an invading force still occupying them.

Then why aren't you calling freedom-fighters, terrorists? They are terrorists and nothing more.

Thank you, Corneliu. As I was telling Willamenia, by calling them freedom fighters you are supporting the terrorist reasoning for committing terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.they are not fighting for their freedom because we are not attacking their religion or their country.

Funny. Last I heard, Iraq was a soveriegn nation. Controlling their own affairs. How precisely is it not free?

You seem to be confusing the meaning of "soveriegn" and "free" they do not mean the same thing.

Then why aren't you calling freedom-fighters, terrorists? They are terrorists and nothing more.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

Iraq's not a free country. You lose.

Iraq is a soverign nation governing its own affairs. Hoiw is that not free?

Well, for one thing, they have an invading force still occupying them.

Well for one thing, we don't have political control of the nation. We are their setting up their defense and *ahem* police force. Once they are on their feet, we'll leave. Besides that, it looks like we're going to start withdrawing people middle of next year.

Well, for one thing, they have an invading force still occupying them.

We are not occupying Iraq. Occupation is:

1.)Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.

2.)The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

We did invade them and "conquer" them, but we no longer control their government nor do we have a military government in place. It's no longer an occupation but rather a troop presence, with the sovreign Iraqi government controlling the nation.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

But freedom fighters can be terrorists at the same time.

Thank you, Corneliu. As I was telling Willamenia, by calling them freedom fighters you are supporting the terrorist reasoning for committing terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.they are not fighting for their freedom because we are not attacking their religion or their country.

The Iraqi "insurgents" and "terrorists" are fighting for their freedom from us. They're no more than simple Freedom Fighters, like those of Cuba in Castro's time.

maybe. But knowing that your more likely to be caught on camera, might make you less likely to commit the crime.

Ya, but that won't decrease crime rates significantly. The cost of training and equiping more policmen would not be worth it. Personnaly, i think that drastic increases in education would lower crime rates (current government spending is only 7% a year, compared to military spending which is 51% a year). Just take 30 billion out of the military budget and put into education. The U.S. could easily afford it.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with this thread. :(

Thank you, Corneliu. As I was telling Willamenia, by calling them freedom fighters you are supporting the terrorist reasoning for committing terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.they are not fighting for their freedom because we are not attacking their religion or their country.
I do not support fanatical freedom-fighters; and, incidentally, freedom-fighters have been around a lot longer than the War on Iraq.

If the word means something different to you, so be it.

Iraq is a soverign nation governing its own affairs. Hoiw is that not free?

Being a "soveriegn" nation and being a "free" nation mean two very different things. For example, Iran is a soveriegn nation, but how "free" as in "freedom" do you think is in Iran at the moment? Now do you get the point?

Being a "soveriegn" nation and being a "free" nation mean two very different things. For example, Iran is a soveriegn nation, but how "free" as in "freedom" do you think is in Iran at the moment? Now do you get the point?

*hands you a cookie*

The Iraqi "insurgents" and "terrorists" are fighting for their freedom from us. They're no more than simple Freedom Fighters, like those of Cuba in Castro's time.

Funny thing is, we're not controlling the country so why are they attacking us AND the Iraqi people. They are just turning the populace away from the terrorists and driving them to sign up in their own police and national guard forces.

So I guess we have the terrorists to thank for the recruitment numbers.

"Terrorists"? Don't you mean freedom-fighters?

I can only choose security, for security includes privacy.

Whose freedoms are Al Qaeda fighting for?

Seems to me they just hate the West and want to blow us all up.

You seem to be confusing the meaning of "soveriegn" and "free" they do not mean the same thing.

I cant believe you are trying to use interpretations:

From Dictionary.com

sov·er·eign

1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit,

free
1. Having political independence:

They sound pretty synonomous to me!

Funny thing is, we're not controlling the country so why are they attacking us AND the Iraqi people. They are just turning the populace away from the terrorists and driving them to sign up in their own police and national guard forces.

So I guess we have the terrorists to thank for the recruitment numbers.

We're not controlling it, per se. However, we're needlessly occupying it and killing (not to mention torturing) innocent civilians. This tends to piss a lot of people off.

Hmm... let's see...

1.)Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
Check.

2.)The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.
Check, although in this case it is control of the current government through their fear that their new allies will leave, through "protection" and "setting up defenses".

Sounds like an occupation to me.

Whose freedoms are Al Qaeda fighting for?

Seems to me they just hate the West and want to blow us all up.

There's not been one bit of evidence that links the Iraqi insurgents to Al Qaeda.

I cant believe you are trying to use interpretations:

From Dictionary.com

sov·er·eign

1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit,

free
1. Having political independence:

They sound pretty synonomous to me!

No, I never went to "Dictionary.com" , but it appears you did.

Iraq is not "free" in the term as we know it in the west and I could line up just about every woman in Iraq to back me up on that! In case you have not been keeping up with the news!

Funny thing is, we're not controlling the country so why are they attacking us AND the Iraqi people. They are just turning the populace away from the terrorists and driving them to sign up in their own police and national guard forces.

So I guess we have the terrorists to thank for the recruitment numbers.

yep. the insurgents in Iraq are all about keeping the Sunni/Kurd majority oppressed... you know, the whole "20% ruling the 80%" status quo in Iraq.

rofl. they're not freedom fighters, they're the would-be warlords of Iraq whose day in the sun is over. now they'll have to settle for being treated equally, and equality just won't cut it for them.

now they'll have to settle for being treated equally, and equality just won't cut it for them.

Oh yeah, especially since the majority of Iraqis have voted for a RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT :rolleyes:.

In your face, occupying American administration.

We're not controlling it, per se. However, we're needlessly occupying it and killing (not to mention torturing) innocent civilians. This tends to piss a lot of people off.

How can we be occupying when we don't have control over the nation of Iraq?

Your confusing definitions. We did occupy it at one point but we handed the nation back on June 28, 2004. That was 2 days early than originally scheduled. At that point, the occupation ended. We have a troop presence and that is all we have in Iraq.

Being a "soveriegn" nation and being a "free" nation mean two very different things. For example, Iran is a soveriegn nation, but how "free" as in "freedom" do you think is in Iran at the moment? Now do you get the point?
What does freedom mean in this context?

In all honesty I don't mind those cameras. I don't have them in my house and they tend to up the rate of criminals caught. Also, the only crime I really commit being petty theft (almost impossible to prevent or detect) they don't fuss me.

I went for privacy. These cameras don't inflict damage to that and in all honesty if you can't stand for freedom you can't stand for anything.

i think the votes are reversed.

IE, a vote for privacy means that you vote for privacy at the expense of safety.

and a vote for safety means that you're more or less cool with the cameras.

(not to pick on you, wurzelmania, it's just that there seem to be more who favor safety, but the votes don't match the discussion)

There's not been one bit of evidence that links the Iraqi insurgents to Al Qaeda.

Then I guess Zarqawi isn't taking orders from Bin Laden?

Whose freedoms are Al Qaeda fighting for?

Seems to me they just hate the West and want to blow us all up.


Seems to me that all of the sane, justified and evidence based posts made by myself, Corneliu, and Frangland are in agreeance that terrorists are not freedom fighters. The crazy posts (I'm referring to Wilmena and Potria) shoudl probably get their facts traight because they aren't winning any oif the arguments a t all. My suggestion to the crazy posts, get your facts straight before you attack us and you'll probably see that we're right. Unless you go to insanityisawesome.com, because those people will be the only people that agree with you.

Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you really want to live dangerously, go live in Iraq for a while. You might change your mind. Personally, Id like to live in a place where we can feel safe stepping out of our front door step. Also, your taking the extreme. The US isn't nor will it ever be a police state. Alert me when the government is overthrown and the police control the country. Then i will retract that statement!

I'm not saying that it is currently a police state, but I would be a lot happier if it was less policed. If you have actually committed a crime, fine go get um with everything we've got. If you haven't committed a crime, no one should be looking over your shoulder. The looking over your shoulder thing is becoming all to pervasive for my taste.

Funny thing is, we're not controlling the country so why are they attacking us AND the Iraqi people. They are just turning the populace away from the terrorists and driving them to sign up in their own police and national guard forces.

So I guess we have the terrorists to thank for the recruitment numbers.
That, my friend, is the million dollar question (though I suppose a million dollars doesn't go as far these days, so let's up it to a billion).

Then I guess Zarqawi isn't taking orders from Bin Laden?

Oh yeah, he's the one controlling every single person who takes up arms to stop American troops :rolleyes:.

Oh yeah, especially since the majority of Iraqis have voted for a RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT :rolleyes:.

Funny, when did they vote their constitution? Funny thing is, they're not. Yes, it'll be based on Islamic Law but that doesn't mean it'll be a religious government.

In your face, occupying American administration.

We're not occupying it so in your face!

Seems to me that all of the sane, justified and evidence based posts made by myself, Corneliu, and Frangland are in agreeance that terrorists are not freedom fighters. The crazy posts (I'm referring to Wilmena and Potria) shoudl probably get their facts traight because they aren't winning any oif the arguments a t all.

Mind if I laugh? I'm sure a good 83% of this board would join in.

Oh yeah, especially since the majority of Iraqis have voted for a RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT :rolleyes:

Yes, apparently "we" don't get what "free" is, because a theocracy is known for giving it's citizen's tons of freedoms. Sorry, Shia law is not, I repeat not "freedom" Say what you want, it is what it is and free it is not.

Iraq is a soverign nation governing its own affairs. Hoiw is that not free?

Popular elections were not held until this year. Before that, the U.S. installed a pro-American government in Iraq to insure American interests in Arabian oil supplies. That's why the Gulf war was launched. Before Saddam attacked Kuwait the U.S. was content with the work he was doing to secure American and British oil interests in the region. It was, after all, the CIA that placed Saddam in power in the first place. (sorry about the rant :) ).

I do not support fanatical freedom-fighters; and, incidentally, freedom-fighters have been around a lot longer than the War on Iraq.

If the word means something different to you, so be it.

You diondt answer anything that I said. They are not freedom fighters because what freedoms are Al Quaeda fighting for anyhow. NOthing. They just hate the US. Get over your poor use in word choice.

Oh yeah, he's the one controlling every single person who takes up arms to stop American troops :rolleyes:.

No but he is an al qaeda agent. Go figure.

Yes, apparently "we" don't get what "free" is, because a theocracy is known for giving it's citizen's tons of freedoms. Sorry, Shia law is not, I repeat not "freedom" Say what you want, it is what it is and free it is not.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

*hands you another cookie*

Popular elections were not held until this year. Before that, the U.S. installed a pro-American government in Iraq to insure American interests in Arabian oil supplies. That's why the Gulf war was launched. Before Saddam attacked Kuwait the U.S. was content with the work he was doing to secure American and British oil interests in the region. It was, after all, the CIA that placed Saddam in power in the first place. (sorry about the rant :) ).

So..... I am talking about the status quo. They are having electyions now. MEaning that it is a free nation. Also look to another post I read entitled Word Meanings. The rest of the post is a history less that I didnt need. Thanks! :headbang:

Mind if I laugh? I'm sure a good 83% of this board would join in.
Laugh your a** out because you know it is true. You have no evidence. YOU LOSE.

So..... I am talking about the status quo. They are having electyions now. MEaning that it is a free nation. Also look to another post I read entitled Word Meanings. The rest of the post is a history less that I didnt need. Thanks! :headbang:

Urge... To make comment about dictionary... Rising...

Then I guess Zarqawi isn't taking orders from Bin Laden?

No, in fact I bet he's not. This is such dated thinking. I seriously doubt Bin Laden is giving any orders these days. See, when America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Al-Qaeda went from a "group" to a world movement. Not all under the control of Bin Laden. Secondly, Zarqawi was not an Al-Qaeda member, he only declared his loyalty to them after the Americans invaded Iraq. No, if I were to take an educated guess, Zarqawi is operating within his own "cell" He's not taking orders from anyone I suspect.

Laugh your a** out because you know it is true. You have no evidence. YOU LOSE.

:fluffle:

Question for you all:

Does "freedom" mean the freedom to do what we do in the West? or does it mean the freedom to be who you want to be?

Or something else?

EDIT: I ask because no two of you seem to have the same idea of what it is.

Question for you all:

Does "freedom" mean the freedom to do what we do in the West? or does it mean the freedom to be who you want to be?


Yes ;)

Question for you all:

Does "freedom" mean the freedom to do what we do in the West? or does it mean the freedom to be who you want to be?

When I think "freedom" I think personal liberty.. etc.. so I suppose yes, some what of what we have in the west, but it doesn't have to be. Freedom is the right to voice your opinion, the right to decide, the right to vote, equal rights for both men & women. I could go on, but there is no freedom in a theocracy, how can there be?

Ya, but that won't decrease crime rates significantly. The cost of training and equiping more policmen would not be worth it. Personnaly, i think that drastic increases in education would lower crime rates (current government spending is only 7% a year, compared to military spending which is 51% a year). Just take 30 billion out of the military budget and put into education. The U.S. could easily afford it.

have a look at speeding stats (sorry need to log off in 2 secs will try and supply later). There tend to be less accidents related to speeding in zones where there are cameras. Especially if people are informed there are cameras.
You speed when you can get away with it and stick to the speed limit when you think you'll get caught.

Yes ;)
Yes, everyone wants to be us. :)

But seriously, folks...

I could go on, but there is no freedom in a theocracy, how can there be?
But what if that is what the people want? If everyone one of them believes in it?

(Not talking realities, here, just ideals.)

But what if that is what the people want? If everyone one of them believes in it?

(Not talking realities, here, just ideals.)


Well, it would still mean that women are not free, thus, no freedom. I doubt any of the women think that Shia law is the way for them..lol ;)

Then, why is it that so many criminals are from ghettos and other poor neighborhoods?

You rarely, if ever, see a plainsuit pulling out a gun to mug somebody.

oh, those poor criminals, we should feel sorry for them.

I agree, we should feel sorry for them... for the ones with severe mental problems who can't help what they do. (and feeling sorry for them si not exactly it... maybe understanding it would be a better way to put it)

But for those who don't try to get jobs but rather decide to rob old ladies, i have no sympathy.

I support the 2nd Amendment because I believe that a person should be able to defend his life, his family's lives and his property from such thugs.

Waiting 5 minutes for the cops to show up when a murderer is chasing you around your house just isn't gonna cut it. I demand the right to defend myself and shoot his sorry ass dead, or at least to such a degree that I can leave and he can be apprehended for his crime. (of course it would be best if criminals would simply leave your house, but then criminals are not the nicest people, are they?)

When I think "freedom" I think personal liberty.. etc.. so I suppose yes, some what of what we have in the west, but it doesn't have to be. Freedom is the right to voice your opinion, the right to decide, the right to vote, equal rights for both men & women. I could go on, but there is no freedom in a theocracy, how can there be?

...don't forget the right to spend your own money as you see fit... and it decreases as your taxes increase.

Privacy I prefer most.

-But- I don't see cameras in public places, etc to be an ivasion of privacy.

Cameras and recording devices in people's homes = bad

The same in public places (not in restaurants and such) = good

...don't forget the right to spend your own money as you see fit... and it decreases as your taxes increase.

Don't get started with that shit.

The government prints it. Consider yourself lucky to have it.

Don't get started with that shit.

The government prints it. Consider yourself lucky to have it.

Higher taxes=less money to spend and productivity goes down
lower taxes=more money to spend and productivity goes up.

Its simple economics.

Higher taxes=less money to spend and productivity goes down
lower taxes=more money to spend and productivity goes up.

Its simple economics.

It's the government's right to take back as much of its own money as it pleases.

It's the government's right to take back as much of its own money as it pleases.

And they can do a better job of that with lower taxes. If taxes are lower, they actually get more money than they do when they raise taxes.

Higher taxes=less money to spend and productivity goes down
lower taxes=more money to spend and productivity goes up.

Its simple economics.

Again, old school thinking Corneliu, that was once true. It is no longer, not with free trade, globalization, outsourcing and cheap foreign labour markets. over valued money and in the case of China, under valued money. It truly is a global economy now which transcends boarders. So it's just not that simple anymore.

And they can do a better job of that with lower taxes. If taxes are lower, they actually get more money than they do when they raise taxes.

Yeah, and when we lower taxes, say goodbye to programs that help people get an education, programs that feed people who can't work, programs that give money to people who can't get a job, and programs that give people medical benefits, who are too poor to afford them otherwise.

Oh, I forgot. In your perfect, no-tax world, everybody would generously donate their money to help the needy. Yeah, right. That's what taxes are for. It's automatic help for the needy.

Or, you may be thinking that everybody would have a job (pfff), nobody would be poor (rofl), and nobody would go hungry (i'm killing myself, here!).

:rolleyes:

Don't get started with that shit.
The government prints it. Consider yourself lucky to have it.

It's the government's right to take back as much of its own money as it pleases.

That sounds...borderline Communist. The entire point of currency is so it can be used as a medium of exchange and a store of value within a society. Not so the governing body of that society can take it at will for their own purposes. How "free" a society can that be?

I believe that the difference between privacy and security should try to remain balanced, but one side should be superior to the other depending on the current international situation. During a time of war, heightened terrorist activities, or even a surge in crime rates in a particular area, security should be made paramount.

And I do not believe that cameras in public areas are a strike against privacy. In urban centers, they can be used for anything between catching car accidents, muggers, or international terrorists on tape.

Whose freedoms are Al Qaeda fighting for?

Seems to me they just hate the West and want to blow us all up.

You're quite narrow minded.

Now, i don't support terrorism in any way (violence is not the answer!), but i do understand the reasoning behind Al Qaeda's actions.

U.S. backing of Israel: The U.S. has provided Israel with High-Tech weapons and money over the past 50 years, which have enabled them to massacre thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Palestinian citizens.

U.S. general medeling: The United States of America has waged wars, proped-up and supported dictatorships in Muslim countries (not just the middle east, countries like Yugoslavia have been decimated for not going along with U.S. plans), for the past 80 years. Osama Bin Laden explained this in his many video taped messages after the September 11th attacks. But the White House told U.S. television networks to "excercise caution" in the viewing of some of these tapes because, and this was the official reason, "They may contain coded messages for terrorist operatives". Heres one that may or may not have been prohibited:

"What America is tasting now is something insignificant to what we have tasted for scores of years. Our nation (the Islamic world) has been tasting this humiliation and degridation for more than 80 years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries are attacked and no one hears and no one heeds. Millions of innocent children are being killed as i speak. They are being killed in Iraq without commiting any sins...To America, i say only a few words to it and its people. I swear to God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor its people who live in it will dream of security before we live it here in Palestine and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace be opon him." Osama bin Laden, Oct. 7th, 2001.

A more likely reason is that the Government didn't want the American people to realize that these attacks were the retaliation for past U.S. military interventions in the middle east. If Americans realized that U.S. intervention abroad brought retalitation- causing death and destruction at home- they might think twice about whether the U.S. should be so eager to go to war overseas. The Pentagon's weapons have demonstrated that they can decimate a countries infastructure, killing thousands-or even hundreds of thousands-of people. It would be naive to think there would be no retaliation.

The September 11th attacks, however, were not simply acts of retrobution, they were also acts of provocation. Bin Laden expected the United States to respond with massive violence, knowing this would bring him new recruits. Ultimatly, he hoped to win the majority of the Muslim world to support his holy war on the U.S.

And, of corse, Bush was dumb enough to play into bin Laden's hands.



For reference, pick up a copy of Joel Andreas's illustrated expose, "Addicted to War: Why the U.S. can't kick militarism". (I got mine at a Barnes and Noble in Washington D.C.).

Again, old school thinking Corneliu, that was once true. It is no longer, not with free trade, globalization, outsourcing and cheap foreign labour markets. over valued money and in the case of China, under valued money. It truly is a global economy now which transcends boarders. So it's just not that simple anymore.

Funny thing is, tax revenues skyrocketed when Bush gave us his tax cuts. Your the old school way of thinking Stephistan.

Safety every time. As I seee it, it's all very well having all your freedoms, until you get blown up in the street by some bloke who has a grudge against your country. If you die free, you're still dead, after all. Besides, for all those people who thinks we're so damn free: we're not allowed to even express opinions that the liberal types find uncongenial (the British Empire? A force for the good? Heaven forbid!), we're not allowed to defend our own property against criminals (sorry, if he breaks into your house and doesn't attack you you can't do much to him - wouldn't want to impinge his human rights), we're not allowed to smoke in public places (which I find particularly silly, and I'm an asthmatic!), and we're discouraged from expressing our own indigenous culture lest we offend someone else's. Hardly freedom, old boy.

agreed. If I hear one more liberal moron banging on about human rights im going to go postal! if we have to have big brother society to keep us safe from scum like terrorists and criminals then so be it.

I'll have to agree with Franklin on the issue:
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

The placement of cameras doesn't deter or prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up. It might help the authorities to catch a few whackjob fundies after the fact, but let's face it-- It's not bringing victims back from the dead.

I have no problem with cameras in privately owned areas, but in public? Hell no. If you give government power, it will abuse it. Every time.
I don't have anything to hide in public, it's not that I want to be "stealthy" or anything. It's the fact that if I give up some of my freedom to gain a little security, they'll certainly want more.
Of course, since it doesn't prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up anyway, I will have given up something invaluable to gain absolutely nothing.

Where's the plus in that?

That sounds...borderline Communist.

Oh, that's a bad thing, now, is it?

I'll have to agree with Franklin on the issue:
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

The placement of cameras doesn't deter or prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up. It might help the authorities to catch a few whackjob fundies after the fact, but let's face it-- It's not bringing victims back from the dead.

I have no problem with cameras in privately owned areas, but in public? Hell no. If you give government power, it will abuse it. Every time.
I don't have anything to hide in public, it's not that I want to be "stealthy" or anything. It's the fact that if I give up some of my freedom to gain a little security, they'll certainly want more.
Of course, since it doesn't prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up anyway, I will have given up something invaluable to gain absolutely nothing.

Where's the plus in that?

*catapults you a cache of cookies*

Couldn't have said it better myself.

agreed. If I hear one more liberal moron banging on about human rights im going to go postal! if we have to have big brother society to keep us safe from scum like terrorists and criminals then so be it.

God, yur so fuckin right, dude! Human Rights are fuckin over rated man!!!!!! Why the hell do we need to control our own futures, anyway????? I mean, its not like anybody enjoys it!!!! God!!!!! :headbang:


(WARNING: what you have just witnessed is a satirical form of humor. Parental discretion is advised for anyone with respect for individuality, personnal freedoms, democracy, or the overall usefullness of the human brain.)

*catapults you a cache of cookies*

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks Potaria. It's funny how often we agree even though (probably only economically) we sit on opposite sides of the fence.

When people like us agree on anything, it's probably safe to assume something like Big Brother is just a stupid idea period. ;)

Thanks Potaria. It's funny how often we agree even though (probably only economically) we sit on opposite sides of the fence.

When people like us agree on anything, it's probably safe to assume something like Big Brother is just a stupid idea period. ;)

I like your way of thinking, but i have to stress that the Big Brother theory is completly sound. Goerge Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four after visiting the Soviet Union. The book expressed his fears about such a society coming into place. And, as he stressed in the book, he said that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia came close to that in their goals, but ultimatly failed.

alright, too rude for even me to have said it
I know that feeling.

(about you, not me) ;)

I'll have to agree with Franklin on the issue:
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
The placement of cameras doesn't deter or prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up. It might help the authorities to catch a few whackjob fundies after the fact, but let's face it-- It's not bringing victims back from the dead.
I have no problem with cameras in privately owned areas, but in public? Hell no. If you give government power, it will abuse it. Every time.
I don't have anything to hide in public, it's not that I want to be "stealthy" or anything. It's the fact that if I give up some of my freedom to gain a little security, they'll certainly want more.
Of course, since it doesn't prevent terrorists from blowing themselves up anyway, I will have given up something invaluable to gain absolutely nothing.
Where's the plus in that?
I agree with Franklin also. However, placing cameras in public areas is not giving up an essential liberty. It isn't giving up a liberty at all. You are in public, and you can be seen by other people or police just as easily as by a camera. Do you boycott your local grocery store for having cameras to ensure that no one shoplifts? And you say you'd rather be watched by another person's camera, for whatever purpose they might have for videotaping surrounding areas, over the government's that might help against illegal activities?

Where you are wrong is that they DO aid in security. Authorities know who a good number of terrorists/criminals are and what they look like, and have known for a while. Tracking them down is the difficult part. What if one just happens to be walking through an area, and is discovered? Trace his path using the infrastructure of cameras in public areas until he enters a private area, and now authorities have a place to watch and people to talk to.

This is not all that likely a scenario. What is far more likely is a camera catching a robbery or assault or hit and run. NO, these cameras or more police cannot prohibit the crime from happening. But did any of you ever think that by having the criminal's face/car on tape, he/she could be stopped? Then, guess what? He won't be able to commit such a crime again, because he will be convicted with ease and be behind bars. Please, someone explain to me how this does not lead to lower crime rates and safer cities? Seems like simple common sense to me.


Oh, that's a bad thing, now, is it?
Um...yes. Yes, it is. You start talking about how US citizen's freedoms are being taken from them, and then you totally switch gears saying how it is the government's right to do as they wish with the people's money. These are totally contradictory. Please elaborate, as these are two mutually exclusive ideas and either you didn't explain what you really meant or I just failed to read it correctly. I know it is not the latter, and I’m hoping it is just the former.

Funny thing is, tax revenues skyrocketed when Bush gave us his tax cuts. Your the old school way of thinking Stephistan.

Oh grasshopper..lol ;)

No, the way you suggest is old school thinking, not mine. Let me try and explain it a little better for you.

Sure, short term Bush's tax cuts help the upper 2, maybe 3% of the populace. If you're talking middle class, I doubt an extra $300 a year is either here nor there. But, the long term is bleak. Bush is spending money and handing out money for corporate welfare and the rich, very little to the "average" guy/gal.

Now the short term effect is rich people invest more but not always in the USA. The United States trade deficit is at an all time high. Why? Because of free trade, globalization, cheaper foreign markets and the government doing nothing to stop corporate America from doing it. No incentives to American companies to stay in the USA, or employ American workers. Thus, the trade deficit.

Then you can look at your over-all deficit and debt to the world bank, which is mostly being bought up by Japan & China. However more so by China. So if your economy is "ok" as you see it in the short term you think that's a good thing. However, in the long term it's actually going to be a very bad thing for America. As America is being able to less and less compete. Not just with cheap foreign labour markets which means everyone is losing their jobs, but more so that China is beating the USA in output, of not just goods, but trade, look at the divide between USA & China when it comes to skilled workers. China is beating the United States by pure volume. They see where the trends are heading. Most people do.

No, Bush's tax cuts are bad for the economy, you don't see it now, but you will in the next few cycles, of course Bush will be long out of office and won't be accountable then. Surprise, surprise!

Welcome to the global economy Corneliu... time to get with the 21st century.

P.S. It was suppose to be "you're" not "your" Just helping you with your grammar too. ;)

I agree with Franklin also. However, placing cameras in public areas is not giving up an essential liberty. It isn't giving up a liberty at all. You are in public, and you can be seen by other people or police just as easily as by a camera. Do you boycott your local grocery store for having cameras to ensure that no one shoplifts? And you say you'd rather be watched by another person's camera, for whatever purpose they might have for videotaping surrounding areas, over the government's that might help against illegal activities?

Where you are wrong is that they DO aid in security. Authorities know who a good number of terrorists/criminals are and what they look like, and have known for a while. Tracking them down is the difficult part. What if one just happens to be walking through an area, and is discovered? Trace his path using the infrastructure of cameras in public areas until he enters a private area, and now authorities have a place to watch and people to talk to.

This is not all that likely a scenario. What is far more likely is a camera catching a robbery or assault or hit and run. NO, these cameras or more police cannot prohibit the crime from happening. But did any of you ever think that by having the criminal's face/car on tape, he/she could be stopped? Then, guess what? He won't be able to commit such a crime again, because he will be convicted with ease and be behind bars. Please, someone explain to me how this does not lead to lower crime rates and safer cities? Seems like simple common sense to me.
I have a far less intrusive, far more effective means of preventing criminal activity... it's called a concealed carrying license.

And that alone will do far more to keep me safe than all of the cameras (and Big Brothers) in the world, without the Godlike, unseeable-but-seeing-all presence I'm not fond of.

I have a far less intrusive, far more effective means of preventing criminal activity... it's called a concealed carrying license.

And that alone will do far more to keep me safe than all of the cameras (and Big Brothers) in the world, without the Godlike, unseeable-but-seeing-all presence I'm not fond of.

I don't necessarily see how, but I do understand the eerie feeling of having someone always "watching". But this kind of project would be only cost effective in major urban centers (Manhattan, Downtown Miami, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, ect), and not in normal medium/light residential areas. Being as though such areas are highly susceptible to crime and you would literally be surrounded by thousands of people at any given moment in these areas, they could both aid police forces while not making themselves obvious and irritating.

But what if that is what the people want? If everyone one of them believes in it?

(Not talking realities, here, just ideals.)

The problem is, not everyone wants it, just the majority. But even within the majority there is a large disparity of belief about how it should be administered. While it may be what the majority want, it is certainly not freedom for the minority.

I don't necessarily see how, but I do understand the eerie feeling of having someone always "watching". But this kind of project would be only cost effective in major urban centers (Manhattan, Downtown Miami, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, ect), and not in normal medium/light residential areas. Being as though such areas are highly susceptible to crime and you would literally be surrounded by thousands of people at any given moment in these areas, they could both aid police forces while not making themselves obvious and irritating.
I understand that you would like to feel secure. That's only natural. I would just disagree with you as to the program's effectivity.
And I'm speaking from experience (that is, experience that thinned my wallet).

I happen to live in a fairly libertarian city that tried to institute Big Brother. The program pissed a lot of us off, and proved to be an enormous waste of our money (suprise!).

You can read about the program's glowing success here (http://sptimes.com/2003/08/20/Tampabay/Ybor_cameras_won_t_se.shtml).

I understand that you would like to feel secure. That's only natural. I would just disagree with you as to the program's effectivity.
And I'm speaking from experience (that is, experience that thinned my wallet).

I happen to live in a fairly libertarian city that tried to institute Big Brother. The program pissed a lot of us off, and proved to be an enormous waste of our money (suprise!).

You can read about the program's glowing success here (http://sptimes.com/2003/08/20/Tampabay/Ybor_cameras_won_t_se.shtml).

I have read about this briefly before, and while I didn't know it was this painfully ineffective, what led to its downfall seems to me to be poor scanning/identification software and political outcry. In the single instance mentioned where a man was falsely accused, he was not accused by authorities, but by some random woman in Tulsa.

Perhaps even with current software (that used in these devices is a few years old, and we all know how quickly hardware and software become outdated) the outcome might be better. While the trial in your city turned out to be a failure, perhaps in a few more years the technology will be improved enough to be worthwhile.

As for costs, "Durkin emphasized Tuesday that the trial run with Face-It didn't cost the city any money. But even so, he said, its use likely benefited the city." To me, if it didn’t result in any correct arrests, then it didn’t benefit. But if its costs were negligible and it helped to better the technology, then it might have had some value.

At the very minimum, cameras still serve as a deterrent to criminals. A person would think twice about mugging someone in a dark street if he was unsure if an electronic eye was watching. Unfortunately, if they are as laughable as those tested in your city, then that might not be applicable.

At the very minimum, cameras still serve as a deterrent to criminals.
We could go on forever since we're at extreme opposite sides on the issue.

Regardless, have your cameras as long as I can keep my concealed gun. I'll leave it up to you to determine which would be more effective as a criminal deterrant. ;)

We could go on forever since we're at extreme opposite sides on the issue.

Regardless, have your cameras as long as I can keep my concealed gun. I'll leave it up to you to determine which would be more effective as a criminal deterrant. ;)

Yeah, a semi-automatic at your side is always an effective tool :p I'm partial to Berettas myself. But what I meant about saying "I don't see how" is that most people (such as the aforementioned Potaria) would never even consider owning a weapon, let alone carrying it with them. And everyone has to be protected one way or the other.

I'm for active use of the Second Amendment, but not everyone else agrees.