No Photos in a Federal Building. What?

[Caine]

Is there anything that's too petty for a right winger to whine about?

It took no time flat to turn a thread about the weirdness of no photos in a federal building into a partisan bitchfest.


Congrats Sangha, you waste no time in devolving the threads of Debate Politics into mindless "Winger" back-and-forths!!!!!!!!

 

[Caine]

I'm guessing it might be seen as a security issue.

Dept. of Homeland Security rule I'm guessing.

As far as the cons here complaining about their 'freedoms'. Stop defending the Patriot Act, Homeland security, the NSA, etc. Then people might pay attention to you complaints about 'freedoms' and rights. You guys brought this kind of stuff on yourself.

If I recall.... it was a republican.... Rand Paul to be exact.... who held a Fillabuster in the name of getting Rid of, Or at least Reducing the powers of, the Patriot Act.......

So, what were you talking about again with "Defending" it????

 

[radcen]

If I recall.... it was a republican.... Rand Paul to be exact.... who held a Fillabuster in the name of getting Rid of, Or at least Reducing the powers of, the Patriot Act.......

So, what were you talking about again with "Defending" it????

Republican in name only for expediency purposes. He doesn't really fit the typical description, though.

 

[Caine]

No he hasn't.

But that still doesn't excuse Cons/Republicans who EVERYTIME defend the police when they shoot an unarmed person.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what you said earlier. Deflecting your own arguments into something else.

Or when they scream for Snowden's head because they have no problem with what the NSA is doing.

Snowden still exposed secrets of the government that he obtained via his top secret clearance right? Exactly, he was wrong, regardless of whether he exposed the NSA as being wrong or not.

Or when they defend the Patriot Act simply because of politics and their defense of anything done during the Bush/Cheney Admin.

Uhh... again... who held the Fillabuster to get rid or , or at least reduce the powers of, the Patriot Act? Oh yeah, a Republican.

Again, the right's silence has helped bring on these police state like tactics. So when I hear them whine about their loss of 'rights and freedoms' I find it especially sad.

If you truly DON'T defend these things then you are in the minority of Cons.

Clearly, you don't ****ing pay attention for ****.

Go open a bank account... save up for a few weeks and maybe you can then afford to pay attention.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

If I recall.... it was a republican.... Rand Paul to be exact.... who held a Fillabuster in the name of getting Rid of, Or at least Reducing the powers of, the Patriot Act.......

So, what were you talking about again with "Defending" it????

How about mentioning the true Republicans like Bush and Cheney? Nah. lol You mention ONE guy who, as was pointed out to you, is a Republican in name only.

Anyway not that you are worth continuing this discussion with, I'm mostly pointing out the Republican base who are more then willing to throw away their rights and freedoms in the name of 'security'.

 

[Caine]

How about mentioning the true Republicans like Bush and Cheney? Nah. lol You mention ONE guy who, as was pointed out to you, is a Republican in name only.

Anyway not that you are worth continuing this discussion with, I'm mostly pointing out the Republican base who are more then willing to throw away their rights and freedoms in the name of 'security'.

Bush and Cheney aren't true republicans anyways. They were neo-cons.

What qualifies you to classify someone as a true republican?????

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Bush and Cheney aren't true republicans anyways. They were neo-cons.

What qualifies you to classify someone as a true republican?????

So to prove your point you are saying Paul is a true Republican, but Bush and Cheney aren't? No, I don't think so.

Anyway again, I'm mostly talking about the rank and file who in the name of politics and security happily defend the NSA, and The PA, but then complain about 'police state tactics'. Can't have it both ways.

Have a nice day.

 

[MaggieD]

What? I was at the post office today and went to take a picture of my tracking number. The man behind the counter wouldn't let Me. So instead I typed it in to my phone. But seriously. What? I can't take a picture? Can anyone please share some thoughts on this? Doesn't that seem a little...hinky? Violation of some kind of free information?

Unless it's posted, I wouldn't believe it. I'd guess it's arbitrary.

 

[blackjack50]

That is your opinion, but as it is their building, they can set the rules. And if they decide that taking pictures of filming inside is banned than people have to hold themselves to those rules. I may disagree with that and think they should loosen up, it is still up to them to enforce their rules.

What the hell is your point then? You disagree with it, but you seem apt to defend it? What? You don't like that a conservative is questioning the stupidity of said rule? Or the justification behind said rule? That is my right to question it and point out the hilarious stupidity of it.

And it isn't my "opinion" about the duty to protect. That is settled case law.

 

[blackjack50]

No, we elect politicians who make rules based on the reality of the situation (terrorism) or to protect oursevles.

And we are supposed to control the rule making, it is not our duty to control the government. but we are there to review the government actions (by way of the judiciary) and by voting against a government in office.

And the government is a bit there to control us because we have given them that duty/order/right.

I too disagree with most of the Patriot act, but sadly politicians (urged to do so by the public and the media) often overreact to situations. They do not let cooler heads prevail (or that is how it most often is).

And again, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with making pictures but as said, it is their rules just like you can decide which rules (within reason) go in your house.

Who gives a **** if they set the rules? It is our duty to point out when they go too far. This would be one of those times. We aren't talking about restricted areas with national secrets. We are talking inside a post office public area. The place that is designated for the public to go in and buy things, and interact.

Questioning this is within my right. As it is also my right to question those who enforce or uphold these rules.

 

[blackjack50]

its their building and they make the rules, theres not violation here or rights you lost.

It is not "their" building. They didn't buy it. The tax payers did. That is a public building. Period. Furthermore...it is a slippery slope to say "their building their rules." Something tells me that if they started firing gays and muslims you would feel different. Hell...you would probably feel different if it was a private building.

Point is: my rights were taken away. Just because something isn't expressly granted doesn't mean I don't have a right to it. Do I have a right to breathe?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)It is not "their" building. They didn't buy it. The tax payers did. That is a public building. Period.
2.) Furthermore...it is a slippery slope to say "their building their rules." Something tells me that if they started firing gays and muslims you would feel different.
3.) Hell...you would probably feel different if it was a private building.
4.)Point is: my rights were taken away. J
5.) just because something isn't expressly granted doesn't mean I don't have a right to it. Do I have a right to breathe?

1.) its there building to make the rules of .. PERIOD. lol are you claiming they cant make the rules there? . . court house cant make their rules either? pentagon? LMAO
2.) ahh yes that would be different because THAT would be a FACTUAL violation of RIGHTS . . .see the difference .. . them not allowing you to take picture doesnt violate one single right at all
3.) what "i" feel or "You" feel doesnt matter . . only facts and rights
4.) and that point majorly failed because ZERO rights of yours were taken away . . .ZERO
5.) stopping you from breathing would violate your rights, not allowing you to take a picture doesnt.

Fact remains theres no violation here or rights you lost.

 

[blackjack50]

1.) its there building to make the rules of .. PERIOD. lol are you claiming they cant make the rules there? . . court house cant make their rules either? pentagon? LMAO
2.) ahh yes that would be different because THAT would be a FACTUAL violation of RIGHTS . . .see the difference .. . them not allowing you to take picture doesnt violate one single right at all
3.) what "i" feel or "You" feel doesnt matter . . only facts and rights
4.) and that point majorly failed because ZERO rights of yours were taken away . . .ZERO
5.) stopping you from breathing would violate your rights, not allowing you to take a picture doesnt.

Fact remains theres no violation here or rights you lost.

Can you tell me where it says I have a right to breathe?

 

[AGENT J]

Can you tell me where it says I have a right to breathe?

Didnt say it says it anywhere LMAO can you tell me why you think a strawman helps your failed and proven wrong claim? or better yet could you tell us what factual right was violated?

Fact remains theres no violation here or rights you lost.

 

[Thoreau72]

What? I was at the post office today and went to take a picture of my tracking number. The man behind the counter wouldn't let Me. So instead I typed it in to my phone. But seriously. What? I can't take a picture? Can anyone please share some thoughts on this? Doesn't that seem a little...hinky? Violation of some kind of free information?

Where have you been living for the last 15 years? No photos in a federal building, whether that is true or not, does not surprise me in the least.

When checking into any hotel or motel in the US, the clerk is not allowed to tell the customer checking in what room he is assigned. He can write it, but he cannot say it out loud. The clerks I have asked about this practice have all said "post 911" is the reason.

Big Brother is here, and he's watching as much as he can. Every citizen is a potential terrorist in today's world, and taking pictures inside a post office might mean you're a terrorist.

 

[radcen]

Where have you been living for the last 15 years? No photos in a federal building, whether that is true or not, does not surprise me in the least.

When checking into any hotel or motel in the US, the clerk is not allowed to tell the customer checking in what room he is assigned. He can write it, but he cannot say it out loud. The clerks I have asked about this practice have all said "post 911" is the reason.

Big Brother is here, and he's watching as much as he can. Every citizen is a potential terrorist in today's world, and taking pictures inside a post office might mean you're a terrorist.

I've never paid attention to that. Now I'm going to have to. I want to say some have told me verbally, but I cannot attest to that with certainty.

 

[Peter King]

Who gives a **** if they set the rules? It is our duty to point out when they go too far. This would be one of those times. We aren't talking about restricted areas with national secrets. We are talking inside a post office public area. The place that is designated for the public to go in and buy things, and interact.

Questioning this is within my right. As it is also my right to question those who enforce or uphold these rules.

It is your opinion that they go too far, but if (heaven forbid) a terrorist attack is committed on a post office that where everybody was free to photograph and film and the terrorists got the lay of the land that way, people would cry "shame on you for allowing this".

It is impossible for governments to please everybody, that is a fact of life.

And you are totally right to question this, but it is also a governments right to ignore this until it is forced to change it due to new laws.

 

[Thoreau72]

I've never paid attention to that. Now I'm going to have to. I want to say some have told me verbally, but I cannot attest to that with certainty.

Check it out next time you check in to a US hotel.

It's been that way for maybe 8 years or so.

 

[blackjack50]

Didnt say it says it anywhere LMAO can you tell me why you think a strawman helps your failed and proven wrong claim? or better yet could you tell us what factual right was violated?

Fact remains theres no violation here or rights you lost.

So the government can stop me from breathing and not violate my rights?

 

[Peter King]

What the hell is your point then? You disagree with it, but you seem apt to defend it? What? You don't like that a conservative is questioning the stupidity of said rule? Or the justification behind said rule? That is my right to question it and point out the hilarious stupidity of it.

And it isn't my "opinion" about the duty to protect. That is settled case law.

I disagree with it but also realize that it is their building and they get to set the rules. Sad but true.

And don't come with that "poor me, I am a conservative and that is why you are disagreeing with me". I couldn't care if it was Bernie Sanders himself who was making these comments, my answer would be exactly the same regardless of political leaning.

 

[blackjack50]

Where have you been living for the last 15 years? No photos in a federal building, whether that is true or not, does not surprise me in the least.

When checking into any hotel or motel in the US, the clerk is not allowed to tell the customer checking in what room he is assigned. He can write it, but he cannot say it out loud. The clerks I have asked about this practice have all said "post 911" is the reason.

Big Brother is here, and he's watching as much as he can. Every citizen is a potential terrorist in today's world, and taking pictures inside a post office might mean you're a terrorist.

I'm 27. I was in 6th grade when 911 happened. And quite frankly I find it stupid. I find it hilarious that people are freaking out that I'm asking about how stupid this is and then they defend it with "but terrorists" and they are blindly accepting "big brother."

 

[blackjack50]

It is your opinion that they go too far, but if (heaven forbid) a terrorist attack is committed on a post office that where everybody was free to photograph and film and the terrorists got the lay of the land that way, people would cry "shame on you for allowing this".

It is impossible for governments to please everybody, that is a fact of life.

And you are totally right to question this, but it is also a governments right to ignore this until it is forced to change it due to new laws.

As opposed to them getting the photos by pretending to be on a cell phone?

Maybe we should be treated guilty until proven innocent? And bar that pesky 4th amendment?

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm 27. I was in 6th grade when 911 happened. And quite frankly I find it stupid. I find it hilarious that people are freaking out that I'm asking about how stupid this is and then they defend it with "but terrorists" and they are blindly accepting "big brother."

Thanks for that.

For the record, I am not defending this practice. I understand it and why it may be the case, but I am not defending it. eace

 

[Peter King]

As opposed to them getting the photos by pretending to be on a cell phone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For all I care they ban use of phones inside the building. People are on their cellphones way too much anyway. Even when you go and eat or go to a quiz game with someone in a pub, everywhere you go people are using those infernal cellphones constantly.

Even in cars, on bikes and walking in the street people seem to have a real issue not using their phone for even a short amount of time.

 

[Tigerace117]

For all I care they ban use of phones inside the building. People are on their cellphones way too much anyway. Even when you go and eat or go to a quiz game with someone in a pub, everywhere you go people are using those infernal cellphones constantly.

Even in cars, on bikes and walking in the street people seem to have a real issue not using their phone for even a short amount of time.

At my summer job they took our cell phones away for the day and some of my friends had "separation anxiety".