Typical con, believes that the end justifies cleansing one’s anus with the Constitution. Big Brother is a Republican, always has been.

Liberals = Liberty!

Rob – public cameras are offensive to the nature of liberty. Free men should never be watched by their government. Government should be watched by free men.

So what you’re asserting is that we can record police officers in public – because we all agree that police officers have no expectation of privacy while working in public – but the police/government can’t film us?

That’s called “being a hypocrite.”

Sorry, I like to be consistent in my views.

“Big Brother is a Republican, always has been.” is just a dumb thing to write. Not calling you dumb, “I H8 GOPers”, but dumb is as dumb does. A little history for you: Stalin wasn’t a Republican. Lenin wasn’t a Republican. Hitler wasn’t a Repubilican (National Socialist…). Castro wasn’t a republican.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was a Republican. So was Eisenhower, who warned of the military-industrial complex.

Big Brother is anyone, of any political persuasion, who has unchecked and unfettered power to impose his/her will on others, such as liberal thought police who impose political correctness.

Your statement about the Constitution is also just dumb, because from where I stand both parties have violated the Constitution over time, with the Democrats being far, far worse. BTW, has your idol Obama repealed warrantless wiretaps? Has the TSA gotten less intrusive under the Obama adminstration?

Well given how quarrelsome you usually are, it wasn’t at all clear that you were agreeing.

It’s also interesting that you use the leftie trick of biased words. You berate me for calling you for your lying smears against me, while describing your language as “disagreement”, but when I disagree with you on the facts, you describe me as “quarrelsome”. Nice biased smear. Why not just be honest?
BTW, it takes at least two to make a quarrel.

You love to lie about others, political smoker.

As far as I know, you can make a public record request to get footage from any publicly-run camera you want.

I really don’t see what the problem is.

Checked out a local municipality’s guidelines for use of public cameras, you cannot request to get footage from any publicly-run camera you want. You may only request footage containing your personal information (how you’re suppose to know that is uncertain). Privacy laws protect other citizens from unapproved viewings. Gee, that makes sense.

Like I said, it resembles a police-state not a free society.

I am under the impression that a reasonable expectation of privacy establishes privacy rights. Puting those streams online for all would not only violate one’s expectation of privacy, but facilitate criminal actions such as stalking.

Of course. There are expectations of privacy even while in public. I certainly don’t expect to be under surveillance every time I move about in public.

Do you find such monitoring of public movement consistent with “limited” gov’t and a free society, or an Orwellian police-state?

I certainly don’t expect to be under surveillance every time I move about in public.

But you are. People watch you. They may or may not record you. If they were recording you, you really have no right to ask that they start.

What you’re asserting is a right to privacy you simply do not have.

Cons

think

the

gubment

is

bad
,

unless

they

are

scared

of

bad

guys,

then

they

will

let

the

gubment

look

inside

their

sister’s

panties

if

it

might

lead

to

their

feeling

safer.

After

all,

why

should

she

care,

unless

she

has

something

to

hide.

“USA TODAY

May 6, 2011 Friday

Americans pay less taxes; Analysis finds the burden at its lowest level since 1958

Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.The total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and
the 1990s — a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit
this year.”

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020416&docId=l:1412773599&isRss=true

Sorry, HF is, as you well know, an extreme right wing think tank and should not be used as a reference during a normal chat.

Keep reading:

“The recession of 2001 and tax cuts championed by President Bush started a
decade-long trend of taxing less income. The 2007-09 recession and new
tax cuts in Obama’s stimulus effort accelerated the change.

The [Obama] one-year Social Security tax cut reduces the worker’s rate from 6.2% to 4.2% — or $2,000 a year on a $100,000 income.

Where a sheet load of our money goes:

http://costofwar.com/en/

Makes ya wonder about The USA affiliations, huh.

Media is biased toward the right, but that’s no big surprise.

“For the first quarter”? What a meaningless statistic. What was the total for the last year for which we had full data? And what’s this “percentage of their income” BS? Is that “total taxes as a % of GDP”? Or are they ignoring a bunch of taxes because they aren’t directly changed against income?

IIRC, Federal, State, and Local Gov’t expenditures are > 40% of GDP, and only the Feds get to run deficits. With bonds there can be some shifting of expenditures vs. revenues, but w/ the Feds taking > 18% of GDP and the States and Local Gov’ts spending ~20% of GDP, there’s no way that “23.6% of income”
number has any connection w/ reality.

Unlike you i was alive before republitardation set in and america had no problems providing for Americans Back then one earner could provide a house car retirement medical and dental insurance and education for all his kids.

Without ever stepping foot in a school himself.

Tell me where republicanism has got us now.

Is it Republicanism which has brought us to this point, or the endless growth of government and its intrusions into our lives?

let’s make a deal: you stop setting up irrelevent, straw-man arguments against conservatives, and in return, we conservatives might stop thinking of you as an angry, bitter loser who doesn’t take responsibility for your own misery.

I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have any more of an expectation of privacy while in public than the cops do.

There really is no constitutional argument against public cameras.

When everyone, including teh criminals, knows where the cameras are, it decreases the utility of the cameras. It makes the exact places where the camera’s are pointing slightly safer, while destroying any deterrent effect they have anywhere else.

If you’re going to have them, you don’t want everyone to know where they are.

I’m not sure how security cameras amount to an Orwellian police state.

The cops can do surveillance now already without a warrant.

Again, you’re applying a legal standard to this which simply doesn’t exist.

And i’m not sure how you can say that it’s perfectly legal for people to observe you in public, but somehow different if that recording is done and compiled by the government.

Again, what right to privacy do you have in public? None. It doesn’t exist. And i’m not one to simply invent rights from where they don’t exist.

And even if you’re only objecting on the merits of the policy, I still think you’re wrong. You’ll hate the cameras…until they help you catch your daughter’s rapist. Or the guy who stole your car. Or the gang that mugged you.

Well, they’re not comfortable with us filming them. Witness this cop arresting a polite kid who just wanted to ask a question for daring to point a camera in his direction.

If we say they can’t do it, they’re going to say we can’t do it.

I could follow you around and film you all day if I wanted. While you’re in public.

You have no expectation of privacy, and I’ve said before that these limits on public access to government footage that you’re hanging your hat on are wrong.

We ought to be allowed access to that footage. Because, again, you have no expectation of privacy in public. If you start asserting that right it’s going to back fire, and our ability to record them is going to be curtailed.

It must be really unpleasant to have such poor reading comprehension. And such a poor ability to connect what you have read with current reality.

In 1984, everyone knew where the cameras were, because they were everywhere, including in private residences. In modern cities, the cameras aren’t everywhere, and aren’t in private residences.

Do I like the cameras? No. Do I think they should be there? No.

If they’re going to be out there, should they be used as effectively as possible? Yes.

It’s sad that you find all that difficult to understand.

You’re right it doesn’t make sense. I never said it.

I do object to the cameras, I do not object to not being able to view them. Not being able to view them acknowledges the expectation of privacy I argue in objection to the cameras. If you read my comments above you’ll hear my argument against public access to the feeds.

Rob, it makes enough sense to prevent you from viewing most recorded public video.

I get you don’t see the diffence. You are more public than most. Most of us on your blog use screen names to protect ourselves from the risks associated with being too public on the web. You however, use your real name. I have to admit, I kind of admire that. But many of us are a little more careful about such things. Gov’t surveylliance of the public through cameras just doesn’t sit well with some of us. It’s a little to risky.

This has nothing to do with govt, political smoker, but don’t let that stop you; Just keep babbling your usual ignorant nonsense.