I thought the US was the land of the free.

Brief notice, followed by an off-topic question.

Are you talking about the surveillance camera? Because there is a massive difference between a security camera, and a 'home-video camcorder' or camera-phone utilized by an individual to irritate most of those surrounding him.

Further, why should we stop discussing a flaw in your argument? Simply because many people have caught on and it disagrees with your statement? Logic is logic. If it disproves, then let it be understood that something has been disproven. Or likewise.

Lastly:
Does anyone else find the disparity between opinions on Bush entertaining? Most nay-sayers group between the man being a complete idiot, while the other reference him as being the diabollical figure from Hell, taking away our liberties with some grand scheme for the world. Which speaks volumes for intelligence, literally.

I imagine the two camps are pretty close, though I can't imagine how.

Originally posted by selfless
Isn't it ironic that while he was being told to not film he pointed his camera shot on a camera on the building...

Give me a break, the hypocrisy keeps flooding.

Only landowners and the government are allowed to film people if you listen to the authoritarians.

Originally posted by Iblis
Are you talking about the surveillance camera? Because there is a massive difference between a security camera, and a 'home-video camcorder' or camera-phone utilized by an individual to irritate most of those surrounding him.

What is the difference between a suveillance camera on a building and a citizen with a video camera?

Besides one is fixed and one is mobile.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Iblis
Brief notice, followed by an off-topic question.

Are you talking about the surveillance camera? Because there is a massive difference between a security camera, and a 'home-video camcorder' or camera-phone utilized by an individual to irritate most of those surrounding him.

You know what? I would be more annoyed being filmed by a ''security camera'' then a person.

The camera used by the government irritates me more then the camera of a person who's on a 911 inside job protest.

Originally posted by Iblis

Further, why should we stop discussing a flaw in your argument? Simply because many people have caught on and it disagrees with your statement? Logic is logic. If it disproves, then let it be understood that something has been disproven. Or likewise.

I did not start the camera arguments.. i said what i said because the camera argument it self was flawed. You have it the other way around...

I truly believe that they were harassed because of the message. Let's turn the tape so to speak for a minute. What if they were there in that exact same spot with a banner that said Support The Troops, with one of those pretty little ribbons on it. Do you really think they would have been treated the same by those security personel from that building?? Would they have charged out of there and have told them to move?? I highly doubt it!!!! I truly believe they were told to stop doing what they were doing because they didn't like the message!!! This is why the film is so disgusting!!! No they were not shoving the camera in anyone faces!! Those men approached them!! They stood their and continued filming!!! As far as the guy that said the terrorist thing, how disgusting is that!!! So because of someone's message, they decided to play the terrorist card!! It's the same as someone trying to play the race card!!! It's pathetic!!! It was a scare tactic!!!

Well said, Vinadetta.

Everything you just said is 100% truth.

Originally posted by Vinadetta
... they didn't like the message!!!

No they didn't like the message at all.

Koran -
[9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

quod.lib.umich.edu...

[edit on 15-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Vinadetta, those are two entirely different messages. Entirely. Not simply 'support or oppose the government'. It cannot be argued.

I'll remember that security cameras are bad the next time I hear about someone getting shot or robbed at a convenience store. Or a gas station. Or it protects the remaining family after a collision at a traffic-stop. Etc. Etc.
Collectively placing cameras into some 'evil' group is ignorant.

Making narrow assumptions for the sake of your argument or bias does not necessarily make them correct nor intelligent.

Originally posted by Iblis
Making narrow assumptions for the sake of your argument or bias does not necessarily make them correct nor intelligent.

I would have to agree and suggest you follow your own suggestion.

Can you point out which of my two POCs actually fills that criteria, Selfless?

Otherwise, I'll assume you just made some half-assed attempt at using my own argument against me.
Which doesn't really work.

Originally posted by Iblis
Vinadetta, those are two entirely different messages. Entirely. Not simply 'support or oppose the government'. It cannot be argued.

I'll remember that security cameras are bad the next time I hear about someone getting shot or robbed at a convenience store. Or a gas station. Or it protects the remaining family after a collision at a traffic-stop. Etc. Etc.
Collectively placing cameras into some 'evil' group is ignorant.

Making narrow assumptions for the sake of your argument or bias does not necessarily make them correct nor intelligent.

Walking around with a banner saying support our troops (the same troops who invaded Iraq and pretty much turned it into a ruin against the people of Iraq's wishes and also bombing houses and killing innocent families ''much more people then 911 even'') is a much more terrorist message then exposing the government for what it really is but yet that would be accepted and saying 911 was an inside job for the sake of waking people up is not accepted in your mind? you say that it can't be argued? well I'm sorry to tell you but, you are wrong. It can't be argued that people have the right to walk anywhere they want and carry around a banner with them regardless of what the banner says and carry a camera around. Why do you think camera's are being sold????? to be used of course

So yes, the only reason why these people got upset and accused him of having a bomb in his bag is due to being brain washed and not able to cope with the idea that the government is not all loving and peaceful.

People who films in the street has also captured acts of violence that resulted in the capture of a criminal so your point about the cameras on the building being more useful is flawed at best and quite frankly this is why i told you, follow your own advice before you post, you make a good statement by saying:

Making narrow assumptions for the sake of your argument or bias does not necessarily make them correct nor intelligent.

You are half way there, you got the idea now you just got to execute it.

I would like to add,

The camera they carried when they did that protest was useful, we got to see and study a sheeple in his natural environment; denial and ignorance...

Why were they there? How about going to the White House and camping outside? Why not camp on the steps of Congress or some such> Why not, because it would not be interesting and that is all those guys were after.

This reminds me of cops who bust teenagers when their are crack houses around the corner. They were asked nicely to stop. There is no 'control' going on here. Who they should be protesting with the Muslims on 47th with the pictures of the towers stating "down to America". They are accomplishing nothing. If nothing else it is a recruiting video.

Originally posted by esdad71
Why were they there? How about going to the White House and camping outside? Why not camp on the steps of Congress or some such> Why not, because it would not be interesting and that is all those guys were after.

Assuming again people?

Maybe they were FROM New York and a trip to Washington was a bit too expensive...

Maybe they had families who were killed in the tragedy them selves and they want to expose what really happened?....

Assuming anything is really easy... but you can't assume that they didn't violate any rights by walking with a banner and carrying a camera, that's a FACT. So regardless of their motivations, the video speaks for it self on how the opposing people reacted to the event of the protest.

In a disgustingly bias brain washed manner.

This is nothing. I used to be involved with a lot of street ministry. We've had cops arrest us, we've been abused and beaten by people on the street and we've had false charges filed against us. Moreover a double standard was applied where we couldn't get permits, but some dumb left wing wacko group could form spontaneous protests use amplified sound and then receive police protection.

The people holding the signs up probably wouldn't think twice about physically attacking a bunch of born again street preachers. It's always the content of the message that's the issue. Free speech for the wacko left, no free speech for the unpopular preacher.

Originally posted by kroms33
I bet they are a cell of those anarchistic anti-globalization protesters that practically destroyed Seattle a few years back running around with a camera trying to get into a fight with the authorities so they can lay some kind of lawsuit on them.

I remember WTO Seattle, a local journalist was arrested and detained that day. The destruction you mention was not done by the protesters, but by a small group, none of whom were caught. They were all in black, and not with the protesters. Yet the protesters were put in jail, and they all escaped? What is to say they were not sent there to make the public dislike the protesters, and blame them for the destruction? It looked like that from here.

Your 'sheeple' comments, and that quip about 'some jew' point out the quality of your own arguments, Selfless. I'm not debating you -- This isn't personal. I'm simply hear, telling the readers your stance is wrong, and explaining why. Personal attacks are entirely rude and without merit in this discussion.

Further, your personal feeling about Iraq does not affect its status, certainly not the entire status associated with it. Your 'political views' do not define a war.
In the end, I won't be able to dissuade you. You're as much a 'sheeple' as your claimed 'victims'. You're simply unable to believe anything but extra-ordinary fact. I simply hope those that read your views, and -opinions-, and the entirety of this argument think otherwise.

Those who desire both security and freedom shall have neither.
That is a quote, from some american founding father, maybe Jefferson?
It is often the case that the leaders of a nation will use security as a motivation to encourage the people to surrender another piece of their freedom and allow their rights to be slightly more compromised. If they are more secure, then that is their choice. I prefer freedom.

Do people realize that freedom means what it says? It means in the definition of law, the existence of no restraints other than good sense. Freedom is adherence by all including the presupposed "elite," to standards of common law. In other words people are to be left alone, unless I, you, he, we, you and they impinge upon that right. In other words you can do anything you want, unless you actually physically violate others.

The government observes some of this principle and ignores it for others. It has sadly become the task of attorneys and governments to exaggerate, to project false charges and false statements in order to reap the benefit of pretending to do something about existing problems.

Other than its alleged moment of madness on 911, the US government has in some respects done what is right, or functioned traditionally as it should. The after effect however exists in a dual paradigm, one that can be described as an assumption of ignorance verses the investigation of reality. Those who abide by the truth have to operate on that assumption in the Gesellschaft or enforced world of money and strangers. When ruled by narrow viewpoints cast in the assumption of some non existent higher wisdom within elites, knowing the truth about 911 is somewhat irrelevant to bagging groceries and sending along customers. Businesses can smile at all times, but say nothing.

Others who are in the business of pretending to be authorized by a higher government keep putting their foot in their mouths, and the irony is they feel better about themselves. Oh and by the way some of those in the initial video selectively may or many not necessarily be genuine "protesters," but rather government agents focusing with other government agents into an interactive theater of the absurd. Put projects like COINTELPRO, into perspective. There is a huge budget to put snippets of absurdity masquerading as the reasonable, into the media and in other places. In that light no one is necessarily exercising their own freedom in the video, but rather codependent propaganda and distraction.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by SkipShipman]

My suggestion is for people in the future to carry two camera's.

One obvious, the other hidden. Something like reporters use, a nice hidden camera on a few people. Get them looking for your obvious camera, and when you do shut it off watch how they react and keep filming them with a hidden camera.

Silverstein in my view is the criminal.