|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2005 04:29:02 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It is like the liberals that say that guns kill people, which is like saying that my pencil makes my spelling mistakes. |
Guns are designed and built to kill.
Pencils are not designed and built to make spelling mistakes. |
Show me a gun that killed someone with out a person pulling the trigger. Grow up. |
That is a problem of a person, who shows lack of responsibility in taking care of the gun. The gun did nothing wrong.....
The unfortunate part about this comment is that there have been occasions where the person that did pull the trigger was not grown up, and the one shot ... never will.
Oh,,, by the way... I am all grown up... :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 01:03:35 PM · #77 |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:15:43 PM · #78 |
My opinion is that any of the current harrassment that is going on today of photographers has nothing to do with terrorism or homeland security but rather an attempt to reduce the use of cameras documenting police actions and for the coming oppression against people at demonstrations protesting the Bush administration policies.
1800 people were arrested last August in NYC at the Republican National Convention. 1700 cases have been processed so far and of these, over 90% have had charges dropped or resulted in not-guilty verdicts. Some people that were arrested weren't even involved in the demonstrations but were bystanders looking on, or were going someplace but got caught up in the bottleneck of huge crowds in the streets during roundups.
I was at the RNC demonstrations for two of the four days and I found the police were videotaping the crowds from many differnt vantage points. Many demonstrators, as well, were videotaping and photographing the different scenes (as was myself). An interesting case has come up regarding a Mr. Alexander Dunlop who was on his way to a restaurant but NOT involved in the demonstrations, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, parading without a permit and obstructing government administration. In his case, the police introduced as evidence during court proceedings their own videotape, supposedly supporting these allegations. What was found was that the police had doctored their films, editing out sections where Dunlop was shown to be acting peacefully. It showed NO disorderly conduct, or any proof of the other charges.
This was discovered when another videotape provided by I-Witness Video Productions who was also taping the scene, (an organization that was working with the National Lawyers Guild to document many of the demonstrations throughout the city), had presented to Dunlop's lawyer the video in it's entirety.
YOU can read about this story HERE.
The police don't want contrary evidence coming forth from bystanders that would show the police to be in the wrong. I would think that law enforcement authorities would want many people photographing in many differnt places as a real terrorist may be caught on film/sensor. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 02:34:02 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
My opinion is that any of the current harrassment that is going on today of photographers has nothing to do with terrorism or homeland security but rather an attempt to reduce the use of cameras documenting police actions and for the coming oppression against people at demonstrations protesting the Bush administration policies.
1800 people were arrested last August in NYC at the Republican National Convention. 1700 cases have been processed so far and of these, over 90% have had charges dropped or resulted in not-guilty verdicts. Some people that were arrested weren't even involved in the demonstrations but were bystanders looking on, or were going someplace but got caught up in the bottleneck of huge crowds in the streets during roundups.
I was at the RNC demonstrations for two of the four days and I found the police were videotaping the crowds from many differnt vantage points. Many demonstrators, as well, were videotaping and photographing the different scenes (as was myself). An interesting case has come up regarding a Mr. Alexander Dunlop who was on his way to a restaurant but NOT involved in the demonstrations, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, parading without a permit and obstructing government administration. In his case, the police introduced as evidence during court proceedings their own videotape, supposedly supporting these allegations. What was found was that the police had doctored their films, editing out sections where Dunlop was shown to be acting peacefully. It showed NO disorderly conduct, or any proof of the other charges.
This was discovered when another videotape provided by I-Witness Video Productions who was also taping the scene, (an organization that was working with the National Lawyers Guild to document many of the demonstrations throughout the city), had presented to Dunlop's lawyer the video in it's entirety.
YOU can read about this story HERE.
The police don't want contrary evidence coming forth from bystanders that would show the police to be in the wrong. I would think that law enforcement authorities would want many people photographing in many differnt places as a real terrorist may be caught on film/sensor. |
One question and one observation:
First, you say "Many demonstrators, as well, were videotaping and photographing the different scenes (as was myself)." So my questin is "Were any of the demonstrators who were videotaping or photographing" asked to, or told to, cease and desist? If not, then it appears that the police were not trying to "reduce the use of cameras documenting police actions" as you charge.
Secondly, this is just an observation that documents my opinion of far too many liberals. In the interview that you provided a link to, Mr. Dunlop says:
"And when I turned on to 2nd Avenue, the street was a mob scene. It was just full of people. I had never seen it like that before. And I got off my bike and I was walking around. I was asking people, âWhat's going on?â No one seemed to know. There was a helicopter above, on the intersection of 10th Street and 2nd Avenue. So there was something happening. I just didn't know what it was. And I even asked a few police officers. They didn't know, either. They said they didn't know."
What I observe is that the majority of the so-called "demonstrators" didn't have a clue as to what was going on or why they were there. My opinion is that they were just there because the "organizers" of the protests were rounding up ignorant people to bolster their "numbers" for media reporting.
FWIW, I am NOT suggesting that the above absolves the police from their apparent violations of the rights to PEACEABLY assemble , or of due process.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 14:42:02. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:06:47 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It is like the liberals that say that guns kill people, which is like saying that my pencil makes my spelling mistakes. |
If you really believe this, then why should we try to find weapons of mass destruction? Why are we trying to help Russia contain and destroy their nuclear arsenal? Could it be because the weapons are half the equation? Why is there a double standard when it comes to gun proliferation in the U.S.? |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:08:04 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
You need to do some research also. The ACLU was formed many years ago by the Communist Party to use our laws to protect their spies. |
I guess that's why they defend people like Rush Limbaugh. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:40:55 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It is like the liberals that say that guns kill people, which is like saying that my pencil makes my spelling mistakes. |
If you really believe this, then why should we try to find weapons of mass destruction? Why are we trying to help Russia contain and destroy their nuclear arsenal? Could it be because the weapons are half the equation? Why is there a double standard when it comes to gun proliferation in the U.S.? |
Actually, we do NOT try to find weapons of mass destruction in an unqualified manner. We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. So, for example, we don't try to find weapons of mass destruction in Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Australia, or many other nations.
On the other hand, the anti-gun lobby DOES want to outlaw guns without regard to the honest intentions of the buyers/owners. Their opponents are NOT opposed to stiffer penalties for ILLEGAL use, or ownership of firearms.
It is NOT, as you say, a "double standard". |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:45:33 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
You need to do some research also. The ACLU was formed many years ago by the Communist Party to use our laws to protect their spies. |
I guess that's why they defend people like Rush Limbaugh. |
They defend people like Rush Limbaugh so that, if successful, they can refer to the findings in his case as precedent to defend their supporters against future prosections for similar violations of the law. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:56:06 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by RonB:
They defend people like Rush Limbaugh so that, if successful, they can refer to the findings in his case as precedent to defend their supporters against future prosections for similar violations of the law. |
Surely you can appreciate that even if they didn't defend him, they could still utilize the decision rendered in future cases... it's called "Precedent".
There exists no need for the ACLU to engage in the defence of Mr. Limbaugh as I am positive he has a great number of supporters that would be more than willing to come to his aid.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 03:56:26 PM · #85 |
| This has all the ear marks of an urban legend a relative of one of your wife's coworkers? We love to scare ourselves don't we? Kind of like the roller coaster, makes life more interesting and dangerous! |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:02:34 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by RonB:
We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. |
So, would it be justified if somebody tried to take away the US's WMD or other weapons for using them offensively? |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:03:49 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
They defend people like Rush Limbaugh so that, if successful, they can refer to the findings in his case as precedent to defend their supporters against future prosections for similar violations of the law. |
Surely you can appreciate that even if they didn't defend him, they could still utilize the decision rendered in future cases... it's called "Precedent".
There exists no need for the ACLU to engage in the defence of Mr. Limbaugh as I am positive he has a great number of supporters that would be more than willing to come to his aid.
Ray |
Let me repeat what I have already stated, since it must have been too easy to overlook.
Originally posted by RonB:
They defend people like Rush Limbaugh so that, if successful, they can refer to the findings in his case as precedent to defend their supporters against future prosections for similar violations of the law. |
In other words, I know what precedent is, and what it's used for. That's why I mentioned it. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:05:46 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It is like the liberals that say that guns kill people, which is like saying that my pencil makes my spelling mistakes. |
If you really believe this, then why should we try to find weapons of mass destruction? Why are we trying to help Russia contain and destroy their nuclear arsenal? Could it be because the weapons are half the equation? Why is there a double standard when it comes to gun proliferation in the U.S.? |
Actually, we do NOT try to find weapons of mass destruction in an unqualified manner. We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. So, for example, we don't try to find weapons of mass destruction in Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Australia, or many other nations.
On the other hand, the anti-gun lobby DOES want to outlaw guns without regard to the honest intentions of the buyers/owners. Their opponents are NOT opposed to stiffer penalties for ILLEGAL use, or ownership of firearms.
It is NOT, as you say, a "double standard". |
The only problem with your approach is that, unlike our international allies and enemies, it is not so easy to identify those that would use guns offensively (for bad purposes) and those that would use them defensively (for good or neutral purposes), nor is the gun lobby really interested in doing so.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 16:12:46. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:08:32 PM · #89 |
| ....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot". |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:09:22 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. |
So, would it be justified if somebody tried to take away the US's WMD or other weapons for using them offensively? |
Seems right. The big question, though, is who gets to make the decision as to whether the use, or threatened use, is OFFENSIVE or DEFENSIVE? I'm sure that you are referring to Iraq, and YOU feel that the use was OFFENSIVE. But, Bush and Rumsfeld, and a lot of other world leaders, plus a majority of senators and congressmen believed that the use was DEFENSIVE. So, as I say, WHO get's to decide? ( Please provide some chuckles for today and say "the United Nations" ). |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:16:07 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
You need to do some research also. The ACLU was formed many years ago by the Communist Party to use our laws to protect their spies. |
I guess that's why they defend people like Rush Limbaugh. |
They defend people like Rush Limbaugh so that, if successful, they can refer to the findings in his case as precedent to defend their supporters against future prosections for similar violations of the law. |
Um, I don't think so. As others have already pointed out, your point is irrelevant. gwphoto was implying that anyone defended by the ACLU is a Communist spy. What does that make Rush Limbaugh?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:21:01 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
It is like the liberals that say that guns kill people, which is like saying that my pencil makes my spelling mistakes. |
If you really believe this, then why should we try to find weapons of mass destruction? Why are we trying to help Russia contain and destroy their nuclear arsenal? Could it be because the weapons are half the equation? Why is there a double standard when it comes to gun proliferation in the U.S.? |
Actually, we do NOT try to find weapons of mass destruction in an unqualified manner. We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. So, for example, we don't try to find weapons of mass destruction in Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Australia, or many other nations.
On the other hand, the anti-gun lobby DOES want to outlaw guns without regard to the honest intentions of the buyers/owners. Their opponents are NOT opposed to stiffer penalties for ILLEGAL use, or ownership of firearms.
It is NOT, as you say, a "double standard". |
The only problem with your approach is that, unlike our international allies and enemies, it is not so easy to identify those that would use guns offensively (for bad purposes) and those that would use them defensively (for good or neutral purposes). |
Those who would use firearms for "bad" purposes would be less inclined to follow the procedures to register them. Those who DO follow the procedures are not as likely to use them offensively. I do feel, however, that the waiting period and extent of background checks are insufficient. AND, if you have to pass both written and empirical tests for a driver's license, I see no reason why you shouldn't have to pass both written and empirical tests for a gun permit. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:27:22 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot". |
Three reasons make it not "moot":
1) Without their involvement, there might not BE a case, but even if there was
2) Without their involvement, the result might not be to their liking. You have to admit that they ( the ACLU ) have deep pockets and broad support. They can wield great leverage that "normal" attorneys cannot.
3) WITH their involvement, they paint themselves as impartial defenders of the oppressed. HINT: They took the Limbaugh case for POLITICAL reasons. It's sheep's clothing on the Wolf, and the sheep are buying it. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 04:39:25 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot". |
Three reasons make it not "moot":
1) Without their involvement, there might not BE a case, but even if there was
2) Without their involvement, the result might not be to their liking. You have to admit that they ( the ACLU ) have deep pockets and broad support. They can wield great leverage that "normal" attorneys cannot.
3) WITH their involvement, they paint themselves as impartial defenders of the oppressed. HINT: They took the Limbaugh case for POLITICAL reasons. It's sheep's clothing on the Wolf, and the sheep are buying it. |
Mere conjecture and speculation. I will resort to a tactic you are fond of using and simply state: "SHOW ME". Since I am not one to engage in circular debates I shall await your "proof" pior to participating in any further discussion on the matter.
Ray.
Message edited by author 2005-04-18 17:23:11. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 05:02:30 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I do feel, however, that the waiting period and extent of background checks are insufficient. AND, if you have to pass both written and empirical tests for a driver's license, I see no reason why you shouldn't have to pass both written and empirical tests for a gun permit. |
Indeed.
But personally, I think we should be worrying about the weapons our government and military are using, not our citizens personal fire arms. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 05:23:00 PM · #96 |
My original intentions of mentioning the ACLU was not to start a rant war over the organization or of its main functions. I brought it up so that if the story mentioned by the original poster was in fact true, and they needed somewhere to turn, I gave "an" option.
Now in response to a couple posts by GWPHOTO, I pasted them below in quotations.
gwphoto quoted:
âYou need to do some research also. The ACLU was formed many years ago by the Communist Party to use our laws to protect their spies. Not it is a run a muck group of mis guided people that are trying to limit your freedoms. Don't believe all you hear in the media.
YOu can start here, //www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1382463/posts and then do a google on the founder Roger Baldwin. This is a dangerous group of people and the truth needs to be told.â
My response:
Personally qwphoto, I do not accept info on blog sites as valid information. Yes, Robert Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU was a socialist. The ACLU is a non-partisan, not for profit organization. His socialist party affiliation had nothing to do with the ACLU. So far, with the exception of a few low-blows, this thread has remained relatively mature. I appreciate your input, but can we keep the, âI guess you voted for Kerryâ¦â stuff out of this? I only bring it up because comments like the ones you are making, are a big problem in America. Pointing fingers âat the other sideâ so to speak, doesnât prove anything, or do justice to any situation, and needs to stop. Youâre telling other members to âdo some researchâ, but so far, all you are doing is repeating hearsay and mis-information as well.
And hey, I mean no harm here. I have nothing against you or your views. I feel I should mention that because even though we may not see eye to eye politically, doesn't mean I dislike you in any way. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 07:52:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot". |
Three reasons make it not "moot":
1) Without their involvement, there might not BE a case, but even if there was
2) Without their involvement, the result might not be to their liking. You have to admit that they ( the ACLU ) have deep pockets and broad support. They can wield great leverage that "normal" attorneys cannot.
3) WITH their involvement, they paint themselves as impartial defenders of the oppressed. HINT: They took the Limbaugh case for POLITICAL reasons. It's sheep's clothing on the Wolf, and the sheep are buying it. |
Mere conjecture and speculation. I will resort to a tactic you are fond of using and simply state: "SHOW ME". Since I am not one to engage in circular debates I shall await your "proof" pior to participating in any further discussion on the matter.
Ray. |
OK. But I'll have to take a little liberty, since some of my statements were already qualified in such a way as to indicate that they were opinion, not fact.
1) Please re-read my point #1. In it you will find ( if you look ) the word "might". That word, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is generally "Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than 'may'". In other words, I indicated in the statement itself that it was opinion, not fact.
2) Please re-read the first statement in my point #2. In it, too, you will find the word "might". Same argument as #1.
As for the second statement, re: "deep pockets and broad support" -
From the ACLU's form 990 filing for the year ending 2003, I offer this: the assets of the ACLU Foundation at the end of 2003 were $150,357,116.
That's more than 150 million dollars. I call that "deep pockets". And THAT figure is only for the FOUNDATION, which is the non-profit arm of the ACLU. The for-profit part, the lobbying arm has money, too.
From The website of the ACLU, I offer this quotation: "We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters"
I would call 400,000 members and supporters "broad support"
As for the third statement, re: "they can wield great leverage" -
From the position paper of the ACLU, I offer these two quotations: 1) "The ACLU, the nationâs largest public interest law firm, is a 50-state network of staffed, autonomous affiliate offices.", and 2) "More than 60 ACLU staff attorneys on the national and affiliate levels collaborate with at least 2,000 volunteer attorneys in handling close to 6,000 cases annually."
I call an organization of that size one that "can wield great leverage".
3) a) By filing an amicus briefing in the Limbaugh case the ACLU is certainly NOT painting themselves as being PARTIAL, therefore the opposite must be true - that is, they are painting themselves as being IMPARTIAL.
b) As for the agenda of the ACLU being political - From Anthony Romero, President of the ACLU, I offer this ( slip of the tongue? ) quotation: "For as long as there is an America, and as long as there is a Constitution, we're going to need the ACLU. We've got to be a permanent fixture on America's political landscape."
I do confess that the very last statement, the part about the sheep, was just rhetorical. You caught me. |
|
|
|
04/18/2005 08:48:00 PM · #98 |
I think you know the answer to your rhetorical question, Ron...the leaders with the most advanced weapons (like the US) get to decide who is using their weapons for offensive or defensive purposes.
Personally, I think the International Criminal Court should be one of the deciding bodies to determine offensive/defensive use of weapons, but the Bush administration would not have any part of that because there's a good chance he and his administration would be found to be guilty of many offensive atrocities. The US has been a malevolent and offensive force in world affairs for a long time, but they do it indirectly and clandestinely and through third parties against democratically elected officials.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
We only try to find weapons of mass destruction in the hand of those who would use them as OFFENSIVE weapons, not as DEFENSIVE weapons. |
So, would it be justified if somebody tried to take away the US's WMD or other weapons for using them offensively? |
Seems right. The big question, though, is who gets to make the decision as to whether the use, or threatened use, is OFFENSIVE or DEFENSIVE? I'm sure that you are referring to Iraq, and YOU feel that the use was OFFENSIVE. But, Bush and Rumsfeld, and a lot of other world leaders, plus a majority of senators and congressmen believed that the use was DEFENSIVE. So, as I say, WHO get's to decide? ( Please provide some chuckles for today and say "the United Nations" ). |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 09:46:15 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
....and had the ACLU not defended Mr. Limbaugh, precedent would have been set in any event.... so this is in effect "moot". |
Three reasons make it not "moot":
1) Without their involvement, there might not BE a case, but even if there was
2) Without their involvement, the result might not be to their liking. You have to admit that they ( the ACLU ) have deep pockets and broad support. They can wield great leverage that "normal" attorneys cannot.
3) WITH their involvement, they paint themselves as impartial defenders of the oppressed. HINT: They took the Limbaugh case for POLITICAL reasons. It's sheep's clothing on the Wolf, and the sheep are buying it. |
Or it might be that the ACLU was defending a principle. From their "About" page:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
It's my understanding that Palm Beach County officials violated Florida's constitutional right of privacy and state law when they seized Rush Limbaugh's medical records.
For those readers not familiar with who Rush Limbaugh is, he's a radio "shock jock" on the extreme right wing who slams the ACLU at every opportunity. I'll leave it to people's common sense to determine why the ACLU involved itself in his case.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2005 09:52:06 PM · #100 |
| Boy what are you guys smoking. If you really believe that crap that the main stream media is feeding you, then I fear this country is in more trouble that I thought. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 12:27:45 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 12:27:45 AM EDT.
|
