America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 42,668 comments
  • 2,438,288 views
Omnis
Get ready for shorter yellow lights across the nation.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/red-lights-for-profit.html

Red light cameras are a filthy racket.
Click to expand...


Odd, I've been caught by a lot of red light cameras, but never gotten any tickets sent to me. Seems like my town and surrounding areas just bought the flasher and not the camera.

My sister has gotten a couple down in the city of Chicago. The red light tickets don't come from the secretary of state like normal tickets, they come from the department of revenue. That right there should tell you what a money raising scam these are. And the weird part is they were installed to prevent accidents at intersections, and accidents rose exponentially.
 
Too add to what Aurora and Foolkiller are saying, there are studies to show (just one the other day on NatGeo) that kids in a supportive home are far more likely to be successful in school than kids not. This study was used to show the populous whether or not Private school trumps Public, which of the two are better. The study shows that neither are better and that children in either setting need a support backing to achieve the "collective" isn't going to do it for them or help them get there, as the video would have you believe.
 
Everyone should fight tickets from a camera. Make them more costly and more of a hassle than what they are worth. If it is found that they are not properly calibrated, light timing has been shortened (which can cause more accidents), or that the officer who signs off on tickets doesn't understand how the technology works you can usually get it throw out. I really want someone to fight them on Constitutional merit. There is no due process, no innocent until proven guilty, or a chance to face your accusser. You are sent a fine without any trial. It would be the equivalent of finding out that you have been found guilty of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison. You can show up to serve your jail time or fight to have the conviction overturned in court. That's guilty until proven innocent.
 
we got rid of ours in the city I live in 2 years ago iirc. What I joke, I paid for 2 or 3 of them and then got a few more that I blew off. They are saying now that a collection agency is gonna come after us lol. I don't believe it will really ruin my credit as most things I borrow for I talk to a local personal banker over.

A complete b.s. deal and I'm glad they are gone.
 
They used to have red light cameras here, wound up in the state Supreme Court where they found them unconstitutional.

Crash
May I introduce you to this little gadget?
Click to expand...

Don't think that link will help, being sold out and all.:p

Edit: My bad, apparently they are still doing their first production run.
 
I've run across a few stories that I've found to be noteworthy. The first is a news story on America's drone policy.

This story starts out discussing one case in a closer look at the president discussing the rules and regulations for drone use. I'd start with not killing 20+ children, first responders, or funeral goers. Just for starters.

Anyway, two parts of this story stuck out to me.

CIA drone attacks have been a source of tension between Pakistan and the U.S. Pakistani officials regularly criticize the strikes in public as a violation of the country's sovereignty, although the government has been known to support at least some of the attacks in the past in secret. Pakistani officials have also claimed that the drones kill large numbers of civilians, an allegation the U.S. says is exaggerated.
Click to expand...

And

In a letter Wednesday to congressional leaders, Attorney General Eric Holder said only one of the U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes beyond war zones - Anwar al-Awlaki, who had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out on U.S. soil - was specifically targeted by American forces. He said Mohammad and the other two Americans were not targeted in the U.S. strikes.
Click to expand...

So we are accidentally killing multiple Americans but Pakistan is exaggerating casualty deaths? Pick one guys. You can't expect me to believe you are accidentally killing Americans where few live and not killing civilians in droves. Watching them dance around accusations of recklessness and constitutional violations would be funny if it weren't outrageous.





And check out how New York City is boosting ticket fines. Change the sign and ticket the cars that are already there within 25 minutes.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05...tz-115-fines-for-what-was-legal-hours-before/

I wonder how long it takes to get a tow truck or have police arrive to a non-injury accident on that same street.

Government is good at getting money from you. But how do they do when it comes to getting money to those that deserve/need it?
The Daily Show contrasted that earlier this week.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-20-2013/america-s-heroes-return---operation-enduring-wait
 
I think this might be of interest to you guys - a former Republican Party adviser, Bruce Bartlett, who has become alienated by the current face of US conservatism. Link
 
DK
I think this might be of interest to you guys - a former Republican Party adviser, Bruce Bartlett, who has become alienated by the current face of US conservatism. Link
Click to expand...

After looking over some of the other articles on that site, I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. A large grain of salt. Heck, the whole shaker.
 
BobK
After looking over some of the other articles on that site, I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. A large grain of salt. Heck, the whole shaker.
Click to expand...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

Bartlett's original article was published in The American Conservative, which is a bastion of libertarian and anti-war paleo-conservatism. Most of GTP's intelligentsia is libertarian and should find Bartlett and his publishers very comfortable company.

In the wake of the 2012 election, the Republican Party is reeling, rudderless, without direction, agenda or discernable future. After a sufficient time of the circular firing squad mode, leaders such as libertarian Rand Paul begin to emerge from the ashes left by the neocons and neo-Keynesians. Of all the competing factions, Bartlett's realism and libertarian leanings point towards the most hopeful future for American Republicans and the conservative movement, in my humble opinion.

Respectfully,
Steve
 
Last edited:
Omnis
No, seriously, Glenn Jacobs is a great man. He's like a super intelligent, non-insane, hyper-charismatic Jesse Ventura, and he's a goddamn sexual tyrannosaurus.
Click to expand...

Question is, has he even got time to bleed?
 
BobK
After looking over some of the other articles on that site, I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. A large grain of salt. Heck, the whole shaker.
Click to expand...

We have a salt mine here in Windsor. I'm thinking that's about the right scale..
 
So, last week the president held a press conference/speech about the drone policy. He promised more transparency and set rules.

This week, there is a report of a drone strike in Pakistan killing the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda (is this like the 50th time we've killed that rank? It's like getting promoted by Darth Vader). The response by the White House is:
So while I am not in a position to confirm the reports of his death, it's important to note who this individual is.
Click to expand...

So, basically the official response is, 'No comment, but if its true he deserved to die.' Is this transparency? Transparency would be saying he was targeted, not avoiding any acknowledgement while trash talking the supposed target. What are they protecting at this point? If we did it then Al-Qaeda knows. If we didn't then Al-Qaeda knows. If a strike happened and we weren't involved then I want to know who else has drones. If there is something worth hiding here it is being hidden from US citizens more than the enemy (they at least got a boom to let them know) and that makes me wonder what is being hidden.
 
You have to understand that what transparency means to normal people and what it means to the government isn't the same thing. For everyday people it should mean something along the lines of "clear and easy to understand" . In government speak it means, "we'll come absolutely clean about everything that supports our position and our policy, but we reserve the right to hide everything that doesn't work out or make us look good and wrap it up in the guise of national security or ongoing investigation or some such gobbledygook"
 
Candidate and Senator Obama opposed the Patriot Act. President Obama abuses the hell out of it. He's an honest and peaceful president, don't forget.

Oh, and when he isn't checking out your phone records he is launching drone strikes, sometimes not knowing who the target actually is.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...ng-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show

The CIA uses two basic methods to target people for killing, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The first is called a “personality” strike. These strikes target known terrorists, whose identities have been firmly established through intelligence, including visual surveillance and electronic and human intelligence. In other words, the CIA knows who it is killing.

In so-called “signature” strikes, intelligence officers and drone operators kill suspects based on their patterns of behavior -- but without positive identification. With signature strikes, the CIA doesn’t necessarily know who it is killing. One former senior intelligence official said that at the height of the drone program in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010, as many as half of the strikes were classified as signature strikes.
Click to expand...
 
Thought I'd throw this out there in case you haven't seen it. Muslim shopkeeper from Long Island gets held up, pulls a shotgun on the robber...and ...well you have to watch the rest of the story, it's incredible!!!

​
 
It would appear that the revelations regarding mobile phone records being accessed by the NSA may just be the tip of the iceberg. According to a new leak, many of the top US tech companies are involved in an NSA program called PRISM which collects all sorts of data on behalf of the government. The tech companies involved are flatly denying any knowledge of this, while others seem to think that such government snooping is a great idea - but that entirely depends on what and who is being monitored...
 
I know that some people are truly outraged by what the government and the associated tech companies have been doing. I accept that scanning or monitoring personal data is immoral and illegal in most cases apart from where there is significant reason to scan the data of certain individuals.

If I think about a government scanning or logging my data and transactions I don't feel angry, betrayed or violated. I accept that governments are facing a massive challenge because of the internet. It's a service which can be used almost anonymously by certain individuals for horrible deeds (child pornography, terrorism, fraud etc).

I feel that as long as the data being monitored isn't recorded or stored in a way that allows it to be compromised I don't really have any concerns.

Anyone feel the same or is it just me?
 
Mark T
I know that some people are truly outraged by what the government and the associated tech companies have been doing. I accept that scanning or monitoring personal data is immoral and illegal in most cases apart from where there is significant reason to scan the data of certain individuals.

If I think about a government scanning or logging my data and transactions I don't feel angry, betrayed or violated. I accept that governments are facing a massive challenge because of the internet. It's a service which can be used almost anonymously by certain individuals for horrible deeds (child pornography, terrorism, fraud etc).

I feel that as long as the data being monitored isn't recorded or stored in a way that allows it to be compromised I don't really have any concerns.

Anyone feel the same or is it just me?
Click to expand...

All I can say about that is, you have a lot more trust in the good faith and intentions of your government that I do...a lot more.

Just my opinion, but I think that any American that isn't completely outraged by the revelations of the last few days and weeks concerning phone tapping, data mining, the IRS etc. etc. etc....well you've forgotten what it is to be American. Us Canadians are a pretty passive bunch, and I'm constantly bewildered by how we just accept some things up here that used to throw Americans into a rage.

This is 1984 come to life folks...it's time to decide what kind of America you want, because if Obama and the Dems slide out from under this, it's only going to get worse. Big Brother has awakened...
 
To paraphrase Famine from the Britain thread, we need politicians who serve, not politicians who rule.
 
Mark T
I know that some people are truly outraged by what the government and the associated tech companies have been doing. I accept that scanning or monitoring personal data is immoral and illegal in most cases apart from where there is significant reason to scan the data of certain individuals.

If I think about a government scanning or logging my data and transactions I don't feel angry, betrayed or violated. I accept that governments are facing a massive challenge because of the internet. It's a service which can be used almost anonymously by certain individuals for horrible deeds (child pornography, terrorism, fraud etc).

I feel that as long as the data being monitored isn't recorded or stored in a way that allows it to be compromised I don't really have any concerns.

Anyone feel the same or is it just me?
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that data has to be stored and is thus vulnerable to compromise - the very concept of observing the activites of the entire population in this way hammers a nail into the Western world's most fundamental underlying tenet: Innocent until proven guilty.

No-one who is not behaving in a manner that would lead someone to suspect them of a specific crime should be investigated for that crime. Monitoring your phone calls in case you commit one is an investigation into you, for no specific crime. It's an assumption that you'll be guilty of something eventually if they keep watching you...


Phone (and e-mail) monitoring should be a power available to intelligence services, to investigate specific suspects of specific crimes.
 
Johnnypenso
All I can say about that is, you have a lot more trust in the good faith and intentions of your government that I do...a lot more.
Click to expand...

See, this is where I'm confusing myself. I don't really trust the government - the politicians act in the way they do because the law and the government allows them to. I feel I've become numb to the government's constant abuse and breach of laws.

Thinking about it, I think have come to accept that governments will do whatever they want. It's defeatist but I feel that it will take something really big (a revolution most likely) to shake up the way our governments behave.
 
Mark T
Anyone feel the same or is it just me?
Click to expand...
What if the Government wants to put cameras in your home but said, "the data being monitored isn't recorded or stored in a way that allows it to be compromised," would you feel the same? We are becoming an online society where we sometimes live more online than offline. I have many political debates with my brother over text and debate politics online here. I am very anti-government. Would I have those conversations in front of an NSA owned camera?

Am I a criminal? No. So, technically I should have nothing to worry about. But the laws make new criminals everyday, and we have just learned that sometimes government entities will discriminate in their enforcement practices with no reason other than they don't like the opinions of some.

Even if the current system is 100% innocent and above board now it doesn't mean it will be in the future. I never look at a program like this and think, "Is it doing bad?" I ask, "Can it be turned bad?" Just look at what Obama has extended The Patriot Act into, or how he manipulated the presidential war powers for the war on terror. Google is fighting a classified records request that they aren't allowed to discuss publicly, Verizon revealed that they are pulling tons of data, and now the NSA is supposedly just accessing any data they want through a "back door." These are all things we were promised wouldn't happen. What else are they promising won't happen that we haven't found out about yet?

I know some people aren't concerned with slippery slopes, but how far down do we have to slide before we should put on the brakes?

For me, it should have been before we violated this:
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...


EDIT:. I like what this guy has to say on the subject. I wonder whatever happened to him.

[Youtube]B6fnfVJzZT4[/media]
 
Last edited:
I find it sad that the people who are singing the chorus of "If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" are the same people who vehemently opposed the Patriot Act when GW Bush was in power.

It seems as if they've forgotten that our governing officials change every few years. Simply put, just because you trust the government now doesn't mean you'll trust the government in two years.
 
Well, things just got interesting.

558.jpg
 
Johnnypenso
This is 1984 come to life folks...it's time to decide what kind of America you want, because if Obama and the Dems slide out from under this, it's only going to get worse. Big Brother has awakened...
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that an alternative government would not do the same?

Lets say that Obama had not won the election and Mitt Romney was now President. Do you think he would have shut PRISM down? Or do you think he would have used it?

The only politician that would shut PRISM down the moment they got into office would be the extreme civil libertarians - and they're unlikely to get elected in the first place.
 

Latest Posts

Back