Further proof of how delusional you gun crazies are. You have no fucking idea on my position on domestic surveillance, warrant-less wiretaps or redefinition of US citizens as terrorists.
As a matter of fact, I guarantee you 1000% that I actually proactively do more to protect YOUR civil liberties against those things than you do by waving your penis-compensator around!

As for "mein freund", wtf is that supposed to mean? Is that a subtle hint at nazis? If so then you are an even bigger fucking idiot than I realized.

But whatever, talking here is obviously pointless. Ignorance is bliss.

Perhaps it's the emotionally-charged irrationality of your reaction to anything "gun?" Or maybe it's when "relevant" statistics are presented (after yet another snide, smug, ill-informed statement) which do not support your tainted world view, you resort to name-calling and stereotype?

If you noticed, there are a small minority of peeps here on the Videosift who regard firearms without fear or disdain, who regard their possession fundamental to authentic, human rights while the vast majority or either neutral on the events happening in the U.S. or support further bans, limitations, checks, etc.

Please, join Professor Farnsworth on the domestic surveillance, warrant-less wiretap, citizen redefined as domestic terrorist planet?!

Delusion is what you may experiencing, I suggest turning off the television, mein freund.

I think he was speaking of the threat from the United States' own government's usurping the powers granted under the constitution, maybe the Department of HS, TSA, shit like that??
Warrant-less wiretaps maybe, parading people in front of the cameras to promote an agenda concerning firearms??

Maybe we should be afraid of something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office

Or perhaps the trending new activity sure to become commonplace with the illusion of increased danger and the instilled paranoia, citizens "reporting any suspicious activity"
i.e., extending the reach of the authorities by employing the help of complicit citizens to report on their neighbors???

Welcome to your clusterfuck.

Hello, I'm Agent Z from the CIA. I specialize in covert operations, bomb disarming, wiretapping, and sodomization.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

Fucking cops. Part-timing as a security guard at Wal-Mart with his police uni on. Is that legal?

Anyhoo, the only state where it's illegal to video a cop, even cops in public with no expectation of privacy, is Illinois. All other states, as far as I know, even those with laws (wiretapping laws) requiring both parties (the recorder and the recorded) to be aware of said recording, recognize that police in public have no expectation of privacy and may be recorded, as long as you aren't breaking any laws (like trespassing) to do so.

Cops lie. It's just a fact. They rely on the public's ignorance. Don't be ignorant. Know your rights. This shit won't end until cops are afraid to challenge informed citizens like this. Oversight, so far, is effectively non-existant. I think the reality of police behavior in this country is untenable in today's age of camera phones and instant media. Something has got to give. Keep recording these assholes.

>> ^kceaton1:

As I've said and as have others, Martin got into a fight out of pure fear (and for good reason, he was fighting for his life). It was already there in his phone call with his girlfriend, you could hear it. Zimmerman is nothing but a paranoid fear-filled vigilante. ...And as a sick joke he still walks the streets...


Can you link to the recording of Martin's phone call? All I've found is the girlfriend reciting it and quotations of her reciting it. It wouldn't seem like something they'd have a recording of unless they tapped some other resource monitoring an existing wiretap or something.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This is similar to what happened here http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

However on September 27, 2010, some criminal charges against Graber were dropped. Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.

This situation is no different.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This doesn't apply to public spaces where there is no expectation of privacy.

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tom drake, nsa, 911, warrantless wiretapping' to 'tom drake, nsa, 911, warrantless wiretapping, Espionage Act' - edited by Boise_Lib

>> ^curiousity:

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)


Same over here, audio has different "weight" than video.

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)