Government Surveillance Cameras on Every Street Corner?

Are you saying that Tony Snow is up to telling a fib from time to time? Can you prove it? We need more than innuendos Pastor Larry

 

I think Tony certainly spins things some times. But I haven't seen in a long time so I don't know of any specific examples. But my main point was not about Snow, but about the general expectation that press secretaries are expected to "carry the water" for the administration. When I have seen Snow, I think he has done a great job with the press.

 

This isn't much of an argument, Pastor Larry. In one sentence you say Tony spins things from time to time yet you have no evidence of this. Now when someone spins, I see this as a means of using a bit of deception and you think these are the qualities that are necessary for the great job he has done with the press?

 

Do you dispute this? I think it is common knowledge. I don't watch him and haven't seen him in months since before he went into the hospital. But I don't think the fact that a press secretary spins things in a way favorable to the president if not the facts is breaking news. I can't imagine someone would dispute it.

It can be, but not always is.

No, I don't think that and didn't say that, as you can tell by reading my post. I think the "great job" he has done with the press is in how he handles them. He does not seem afraid to "put them in their places." That is irrespective of the content.

 

No. Please read carefully. What proved me right was your evidence that 1) these things happen (which I already said), and 2) they are mistakes (which I already said).

Do you know why they do no-knock raids?

No insensitivity at all. It actually shows an ability to critically analyze a comment, even if isolated. What he said shows that he was not thinking clearly or using hyperbole. On what possible basis would someone forfeit his life on earth, leaving his family behind, simply because of a mistaken police search?? Doesn't that seem rash to you?

All I can go on is what you said. I commented on that.

 

This is very troubling Pastor Larry. You don't watch Tony Snow and yet you accept this as common knowledge. Where is your credibility?

 

I used to watch him because he was on when I was eating lunch. Then he was in the hospital and out for a month, and since he has been back, I haven't been around TV during the press briefing. I don't schedule my life about WH press briefings because I really don't care that much, but I used to watch him. Plus I see clips from time to time, or read reports. I simply cannot think of a specific example right now. Given my desire to be honest and truthful about people and their positions, I don't give examples that I don't konw about. I know that flies in the face of the way some people do things, but it works OK for me.

But what is common knowledge is that press secretaries are hired to put the best possible spin on the issues. Do you dispute that Tony Snow is hired to do that?

Again, I am not sure what you are questioning here (apart from my credibility which isn't really the issue, unless you want to make this personal).

 

Using spin is the eventual outcome but relaying news to the media and public in regards of what the President is doing should be honest and straight forward, well anyway that is what some of us would like to believe if we weren't so naive.
So I don't think you have quite proven your point about what is or isn't common knowledge.

 

Okay. I don't think you really "prove" that something is common knowledge without asking a bunch of people, and I don't have the time or interest to do that. But I think it fairly safe to say that it is common knowledge that the press secretary is to put the best possible face on any given situation and that is generally what is called spin. If you disagree, that is fine with me.

 

Yes. So? What is your point? I don't know any of them. I still don't though I have read an article or two. But I said from the beginning that they probably happen. And you verified that I was right.

This is certainly true.

 

I have no good arguments that would cause Pastor Larry to re-consider his position (even if, after re-consideration, he decided not to change his mind).

So let's put this a different way. In my naive view of the world, the role of the government is to represent its people, and enforce the laws the people have decided (through representation via senators and representatives) are best for society.

Looking at the poll for this particular topic, will setting up cameras on the street corners be representative of what the people want their government to do?

Or is there someone somewhere saying, "I know better, and even if the majority of the people don't like it, we're going to do it anyway"?

 

This is exactly where we are today, this is how the government rules without the consideration of it's citizens.
Good point Don, :thumbs: I agree with you.

 

They hate what freedoms? The freedom to choose between a Republican and a Democrat tax man?

 

On a radio program this AM in LA: They are perfecting the technology, and making workable application of camera systems that will instantly detect the speed and relative position of vehicles (as in tailgating) while recording license numbers, relaying the info to main computers, which will spit out citations for immediate mailing to offenders. They expect the initial cost to be incredibly high, but with a phenomenal payback promised.

The kicker is that we won't have a thing to say about it. Just pay.

 

This surveillance issue is probably a natural thing, what with mans increasingly sinful heart, and the ability of techies to produce this stuff. The rub comes with having a so called free society, which, loses its freedoms little by little, as time goes on. These things will happen slowly enough that you soon realize, someone can be watching you, from your front door, back to your front door. That will be the main deterrent to crime in the future. IMHO. Team that up with neighbor telling on neighbor, like California is perfecting, and you have society under almost complete control. And that is precisely the direction the liberals are pushing.

 

Whatever they call themselves, they are liberals.

 

Either way, total surveillance is going to happen, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.