RE: Democracy by Republican

RE: Democracy by Republican (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:22:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you said other libs had done it. kindly point out where a lib has confiscated repub cameras in a town hall meeting and not lib cams???. I'm sorry, but you are attempting to mix two issues in a way that prevents the defense of one at the expense of another. It is both a property issue, and a 1st amendment issue. You wish to prevent discussion of the free speech issue by restricting the discussion to the property issue. If you wish to discuss the loss of, and violation of property rights by liberal politicians, then I've got a bunch of examples. If you wish to discuss the loss of, and violation of 1st amendment rights by liberal or Democratic politicians, I've got a bunch of them. But neither option is one you will accept, so I don't really see much reason to attempt to discuss anything here. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:24:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too. Yup. Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:25:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too. Yup. Firm And now back to our regularly scheduled disagreement.[8D]

rulemylife -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:27:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet I lived in Cincinnati for a few years. Not surprising this type of thing would happen in a town that had Jerry springer for a mayor and tried to ban Robert Mapplethorpe. That town is shockingly conservative and goddamn proud of it. They aren't afraid to stifle someone's freedom of speech in there either. Apologies to all Reds' fans for my rant here. Not to mention where they put Larry Flynt on trial and banned all the strip clubs, so now everyone just goes over the river into Covington.

rulemylife -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Ohio Nazis.... I hate Ohio Nazis... No that's just Cincinnati. I've lived in a lot of different places but I'm from Ohio, and it's a very diverse state. Cincinnati has just always been ultra-conservative and ultra-religious.

Lucylastic -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:38:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you said other libs had done it. kindly point out where a lib has confiscated repub cameras in a town hall meeting and not lib cams???. I'm sorry, but you are attempting to mix two issues in a way that prevents the defense of one at the expense of another. cobblers It is both a property issue, and a 1st amendment issue. agreed, however it was party related, you claimed libs had done the same remember"During the townhall meetings that many Democratic congressional members had over the health care debate, they did the same thing. "? so where are your links please You wish to prevent discussion of the free speech issue by restricting the discussion to the property issue. No If you wish to discuss the loss of, and violation of property rights by liberal politicians, then I've got a bunch of examples.I dont, this is about confiscating video cameras at a public event and not the opposite party If you wish to discuss the loss of, and violation of 1st amendment rights by liberal or Democratic politicians, I've got a bunch of them. ahuh, except that is not the question being asked by me, But neither option is one you will accept, so I don't really see much reason to attempt to discuss anything here. if you want to obfuscate, I wont respond, I want a simple answer to the simple question Firm there is no need to mix it up , answer the question or dont.... but dont obfuscate, you convoluting it into something deeper is not going to shut me up answer or dont,

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 8:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic there is no need to mix it up , answer the question or dont.... but dont obfuscate, you convoluting it into something deeper is not going to shut me up answer or dont, Sorry, Lucy, but with all due respect, I'm attempting to clarify, not obfuscate. Perhaps if you wouldn't mind stating succinctly and clearly your point in starting the thread? Perhaps then I'll better understand what your point is, and be able to intelligently respond? Firm

Lucylastic -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 9:20:23 AM)
try harder, its not like Ive changed my goalpost since the first page with all due respect, [8\|]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 9:49:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic try harder, its not like Ive changed my goalpost since the first page with all due respect, [8\|] Your OP contains no personal comments or observations by you. It is comprised of quotes from articles. Therefore it appears to allow the posters who respond to draw their own conclusions for the reason you posted. Therefore, I can only go on how people responded, which was to the free speech issue. Additionally in your post 13 you said: If I remember correctly Weiner TRIED to get them banned , but they were allowed in.. care to share some more? I don't believe anyone actually confiscated cameras from the opposition only.......at least not in the last five years, altho there was that case of locking one in a closet, and I was the one that started the topic. Edited to addd, I DO remember people like sharon angle and jan brewer, christine o donnell refusing to let the press in... so Im sure there were dems too, but confiscating from dems (or pubs only) ? In this case, your lead sentence is about the free speech aspect as well, and you mention it again in closing. This is the first time that you mention the confiscation as an aspect that you wanted the thread to be about, at which point I clarified that I was addressing the speech issue. When I asked for clarification, you refuse. Well, from my point of view, the confiscation - while a actionable offense all it's own - was just secondary, as the purpose of such confiscation was to shut down or deny the speech aspect. If you disagree, I'm certainly open to discussing it. Firm

Lucylastic -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 10:36:12 AM)
no, not acceptable..you can do better and you are honest normally, not this time however it seems. It would have been simpler to just say so. I kept it simple, I have no desire to get into philosophy on first amendment, I wanted your claim backed up Im not responding when you cannot be honest

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:14:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic no, not acceptable..you can do better and you are honest normally, not this time however it seems. It would have been simpler to just say so. I kept it simple, I have no desire to get into philosophy on first amendment, I wanted your claim backed up Im not responding when you cannot be honest See, Lucy, this is where I have a problem with many on the left of center. How am I being dishonest? I've asked for clarification a couple of times. I've given my understanding of how the thread developed, and tried to show how I arrive at a conclusion of what the issue is, that we are suppose to be discussing. And I think I have been polite, and non-judgmental about it. But you simply insult me. Why? Why not clarify and restate the thesis of the thread? I'm willing to address what you wish to address, but the refusal on your part to be part of the discussion makes me wonder about your motives. Firm. PS. Oh, yeah ... I thought this was applicable ... Secret Service Warns Public That They Would Confiscate Any Cameras Used to Take Pictures of First Family Published 1, March 22, 2010 This story on the First Lady taking the kids to a Broadway show in New York has an interesting element: a warning by the Secret Service that anyone taking their picture would have their cameras confiscated. Perhaps the Secret Service General Counsel could point us to where in the Constitution and federal law the Secret Service has the authority to ban photographs by the public and the confiscation of cellphones and pictures to enforce the ban. There is a link to the actual story, in Turley's opinion piece.

kalikshama -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:34:56 AM)
quote: A Chabot spokesman said the had the cameras seized “to protect the privacy of constituents” at the event, although there were at least two media outlets at the North Avondale Recreation Center filming the meeting. Trying to prevent a "macaca" moment, methinks.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:38:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: A Chabot spokesman said the had the cameras seized “to protect the privacy of constituents” at the event, although there were at least two media outlets at the North Avondale Recreation Center filming the meeting. Trying to prevent a "macaca" moment, methinks. You learn something new every day. Before reading that article, I had never seen that term before, much less known what it meant.

Lucylastic -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:46:59 AM)
Firm......insult you?? no.. VERY disappointed in your lack of straightforwardness?, yes, PS your link was a threat to take away, this jokers game in ohio was actual confiscation... SO you actually did know exactly what I meant but you tried and spin this web of bullshit. while you could find source Changed my mind, actually yes you do deserve to be insulted take it for what its worth, I will not respond to you again YOU are the one that is being intellectually dishonest I asked a simple question, you failed to give a simple honest answer.

farglebargle -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:47:25 AM)
Don't you know taking pictures at a broadway show isn't allowed? Geez, next you'll want a bootleg copy of the show just to save $1000 on tickets...

Hillwilliam -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 11:56:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Don't you know taking pictures at a broadway show isn't allowed? Geez, next you'll want a bootleg copy of the show just to save $1000 on tickets... Fargle, I think the Secret Service was talking about taking pictures outside on the street and in the lobby. I might be wrong tho.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 12:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Firm......insult you?? no.. VERY disappointed in your lack of straightforwardness?, yes, Calling someone "dishonest" is indeed an insult. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic PS your link was a threat to take away, this jokers game in ohio was actual confiscation... SO you actually did know exactly what I meant but you tried and spin this web of bullshit. while you could find source All I did was google for "Obama Camera Confiscate" to see if there was anything, in order to address - somewhat - something that is in line with you desire to key in on the term "confiscate". Personally, I think the issue is about a person's belief that they have the "right" to do so, and a threat to do so shows a belief that they have the "right". But, again, I think the property rights issue is secondary in this case to the sheer effrontery of powerful people - especially politicians - to believe that they have the right to abrogate people's rights to record or photograph or otherwise capture the workings of our government. (Yes, the theater thing above is slightly different). I have a problem when the police arrest someone for taking a video of them during a traffic stop. I have a problem with police charging a women with a crime, when her sexual abuse complaint about a member of the police force is dismissed, and she confronts and records them. If you wish to make this about property rights, then simply say so, and I'll leave your thread in peace. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Changed my mind, actually yes you do deserve to be insulted take it for what its worth, I will not respond to you again Which is sad. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic YOU are the one that is being intellectually dishonest I asked a simple question, you failed to give a simple honest answer. I don't see it that way. Firm

Aylee -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 12:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too. Yup. Firm I am not so sure about the illegal part. There were signs posted that there was to be NO private video taping. The two individuals were video tapping anyways. Their camera-things (one was a phone, as I recall) were returned after the meeting. The concern was apparently private individuals being you tubed and such without their consent. News organizations have to get consent.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 1:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too. Yup. Firm I am not so sure about the illegal part. There were signs posted that there was to be NO private video taping. The two individuals were video tapping anyways. Their camera-things (one was a phone, as I recall) were returned after the meeting. The concern was apparently private individuals being you tubed and such without their consent. News organizations have to get consent. Aylee, news organizations don't get permission before taping private citizens. When they film a fair, an accident scene, etc, do you see them getting releases from everyone? If a person is in public, they can assume they might be recorded. The courts have upheld video monitoring repeatedly by just that ruling. A politician is, by definition, a public person. Noone begged them to run for office. He decided to put his face out there. As for confiscation of phones, etc. I don't care if they do return it later. It is illegal confiscation of personal property without due process.

Aylee -> RE: Democracy by Republican (8/26/2011 2:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too. Yup. Firm I am not so sure about the illegal part. There were signs posted that there was to be NO private video taping. The two individuals were video tapping anyways. Their camera-things (one was a phone, as I recall) were returned after the meeting. The concern was apparently private individuals being you tubed and such without their consent. News organizations have to get consent. Aylee, news organizations don't get permission before taping private citizens. When they film a fair, an accident scene, etc, do you see them getting releases from everyone? If a person is in public, they can assume they might be recorded. The courts have upheld video monitoring repeatedly by just that ruling. A politician is, by definition, a public person. Noone begged them to run for office. He decided to put his face out there. As for confiscation of phones, etc. I don't care if they do return it later. It is illegal confiscation of personal property without due process. I don't know. When I read an article about this a couple three days ago, I had thought that the situation was similar to those people in the audience of that guy that talks to the dead. There are to be no pictures or video, and they can confiscate and remove such.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875