(Close Window)
Topic: TSA, DHS plan massive rollout of mobile surveillance vans with long-distance X-ray capability
Message: Posted by: panlives (Mar 9, 2011 01:25PM)
"The Surveillance State is getting increasingly spooky by the day, it seems. Newly-released documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that DHS is rolling out a mobile army of surveillance vans that will use long-distance X-rays, infrared cameras and even eye movement trackers to covertly surveil innocent people.
The TSA's naked body scanners, it turns out, were only the beginning. Read this true story of the fast-expanding U.S. surveillance state":

http://www.naturalnews.com/031603_surveillance_police_state.html
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Mar 9, 2011 02:18PM)
Not sure whats true and what isn't, but I don't have a big issue with a lot of this stuff. ".... surveil innocent people." Who knows they are innocent? People are mad that the patriot act keeps expanding, but does anyone think that maybe there is a reason for it. After 9/11, everybody was all over the intelligence agencies (rightly so) and could it be that they are trying hard to not let that happen again? These rights that are being run over, they were run over many times before-we just didn't know.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Mar 9, 2011 04:59PM)
I doubt it's true at all. But as Kcg alluded to if the U.S. had been watching things better 9/11 may have been less of an attack than it was. Somethings in the way of surveillance should and do need to happen.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Mar 9, 2011 07:23PM)
I think the biggest issue I have with all this high-tech stuff is that it's created by money-making businesses and sold to the government under the catchphrase of "security," and probably through the good offices of lobbyists. In other words, sure, give me some money for my campaign and I'll vote for using public money to buy your product.

Can I personally prove any of it? No. Do I totally believe it could be proven by a modern-day Woodward and Bernstein? Yep.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 9, 2011 08:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-09 20:23, George Ledo wrote:
I think the biggest issue I have with all this high-tech stuff is that it's created by money-making businesses and sold to the government under the catchphrase of "security," and probably through the good offices of lobbyists. In other words, sure, give me some money for my campaign and I'll vote for using public money to buy your product.

Can I personally prove any of it? No. Do I totally believe it could be proven by a modern-day Woodward and Bernstein? Yep.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure this is beyond a shadow of a doubt. My question is, what good would "exposing" it actually do?
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Mar 9, 2011 10:35PM)
Well, see, I have a basic problem with all this. When I was in school, we had to listen to lectures about people leaving England for this or that, or about the colonists getting up in arms about something or other, or about a bunch of guys dressing like Indians and dumping tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes. All that stuff. And it was pushed like it was the right thing to do back then, what created our country and made it great. And we were expected to learn it and believe in it.

So I grew up believing all this stuff.

But nowadays I see people kvetching all over the place but apparently thinking that they can't do anything about any of it. Like HELLOOOO! It takes less effort to get out and vote than it does to write all these columns and do all this kvetching. Except, of course, that kvetching in print sells papers and magazines and books. So it becomes more important (in terms of the wallet) to write about stuff than to get out there and do something about it.

Sorry to rant, but I've spent a lot of time during my career listening to people (in business meetings and such) spend their time, and everyone else's, talking about problems instead of talking about solutions. The most recent being yesterday. It does get old after thirty years.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 10, 2011 07:37AM)
Are you suggesting voting as a means for change?

Can you honestly pin point the last thing your vote did? Specifically, what did your vote actually accomplish?
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Mar 10, 2011 09:29AM)
Gdw the thought that voting doesn't do any good and that not voting is better is one of the problems. There are too many nimrods here that don't vote. Then again they maybe not have the brain power to vote in the first place if they tried. If you listen to them talk they sure don't sound like they have much brains.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Mar 10, 2011 11:58AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-10 08:37, gdw wrote:
Are you suggesting voting as a means for change?

Can you honestly pin point the last thing your vote did? Specifically, what did your vote actually accomplish?
[/quote]
My own personal one, by itself, not much. If anything. No argument there. But if you take millions of them, specifically the millions which weren't cast due to (take you pick of reasons), and apply them, then they do work. We have that mechanism.

But beyond voting per se, it's a matter of either caring or not. It's a matter of keeping all those sworn elected officials, who are not doing their job, in office or not. It's a matter of taking a hand in how your country is run or just becoming a sheep and baaaaing all the way to the slaughterhouse "because that's your karma."

Complacency is a bad thing.

Ahhh, I do get too excited about this. Gotta stop that. I'm grumpy enough as it is. :)
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Mar 10, 2011 12:20PM)
[quote]
These rights that are being run over, they were run over many times before-we just didn't know.
[/quote]

And that makes alllllllllll the difference.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Mar 10, 2011 03:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-10 12:58, George Ledo wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-03-10 08:37, gdw wrote:
Are you suggesting voting as a means for change?

Can you honestly pin point the last thing your vote did? Specifically, what did your vote actually accomplish?
[/quote]
My own personal one, by itself, not much. If anything. No argument there. But if you take millions of them, specifically the millions which weren't cast due to (take you pick of reasons), and apply them, then they do work. We have that mechanism.

But beyond voting per se, it's a matter of either caring or not. It's a matter of keeping all those sworn elected officials, who are not doing their job, in office or not. It's a matter of taking a hand in how your country is run or just becoming a sheep and baaaaing all the way to the slaughterhouse "because that's your karma."

Complacency is a bad thing.

Ahhh, I do get too excited about this. Gotta stop that. I'm grumpy enough as it is. :)
[/quote]

I agree that complacency is a bad thing, but the voting process ends up being a dodge that convinces people they aren't complacent, but in reality helps prevent them from becoming anything but.

Think about '08. Looking at Bush and Obama, I imagine most would say they would be about as different as you could get. How much of the fuel behind Obama was reaction to Bush?
How different do they really look now?
How much "change" has there really been?
What did those millions of votes really accomplish?