DISQUS

Paul--

I actually didn't see your comment before I posted mine, since I was only looking at the first page, but I think your points here are excellent.

What I don't like is your connection to conspiracies and "nuts." Obviously I would never wish to censor anyone's comments, but I think your connection to those who take in part in so-called "conspiracy theories" and mental illness, which may not be intentional, is a little inappropriate.

People with differing view points are constantly being marginalized using terms like "nut job" to discredit them; that term lends to an assumption that anyone with viewpoints that you do not find to be credible is mentally ill or has some mental impairment that makes their judgment on things off. If you are trying to promote debate, just do it sensibly, there is no need for ridiculous name calling...

Not to get off-topic either, and keep in mind I don't know where exactly I stand on the issue of 9/11, but people who believe it is an inside job are out there taking action. We Are Change, for example does a heck of a lot. But then you criticize them for being nuts anyway...

I have been pretty quiet for a while now but I might have a little bit to contribute to this discussion.

I am a lifelong resident of the City of the Rochester and I feel uncomfortable with the idea of mass policing and surveillance cameras. Crimes do happen when people have the opportunity, but I really don't see any point in having police cameras everywhere since no one would ideally plan to kill someone in front of one. Perhaps there is some correlation to smaller crimes, but I don't know that these cameras will actually affect murders.

I actually spoke with a city councilman not too long ago who conveyed to me a sense that people have agreed to these cameras as part of an initiative to deter crime, but they cannot be permanently funded and sustained. He agreed that the use of data was a potential problem, and that many people have expressed concern about it. We also discussed how a free society could not be watched 24 hours a day; people themselves have to decide not to take someone else's life. Governments can't stop people from killing one another, yet the social, economic and political climate of this country has been one cause leading to violence and other crime. Can we prove that these cameras catch the actual murderers?

Is your reason for wanting police cameras, Ryan, that you personally want to be safe when you venture into the city to grab a hot dog or hang out in the East End? I suppose I understand that not feeling safe is a deterrent to hanging out in a city, but I don't feel my life is threatened...What do you think is the psychological impact on actual city residents, both "law abiding" and criminals?

I don't know that more police around or cameras could have prevented that shooting at Mark's Hots either. I also don't feel any less safe going there, because I don't tie that crime (albeit horrible and senseless) to Mark's. It could happen anywhere. You could be standing in line at a bank and someone could come in and shoot everyone.

However, I do think that police presence out on the streets in areas like Monroe and East Ave where there are bars is completely reasonable...there's probable cause that someone would get into trouble in that case.
NPR had an interesting little segment regarding some of the pros and cons to surveillance cameras in London. I think I've read some stuff on how the crime rate in London hasn't really budged much despite the cameras and this brief clip mentions that

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

I just think that we are too willing to try and patch up problems instead of addressing the roots causes of most crime. That's why I'm against it.

David, I can't address everything that you spoke about in your comment and I usually don't like to leave long posts, but I do want to take a minute to deal with the impressions your comment left.

It seems like you are trying to imply throughout your entire post that Andrew's article is pro-McCain. If you would take a minute to check the views that are represented on this site, you would know that for the most part the articles that have been written imply that neither McCain or Obama is fit for the job.

In fact, in this video the protester is shouting that Obama and McCain are the same. That was his point. He wasn't there to bash Obama, rather he was there to protest the two-party system. "They aren't debating anything," he says as he walks up to a group holdin McCain posters.

Your last comment about race, skin color etc. is completely irrelevant. Nowhere in the article did Andrew or Watson or the protester say that they were using these concepts to formulate an opinion of the candidate. In fact, this site is in the habit of actually looking at "scorecards." Andrew isn't throwing around partisanship because he isn't affiliated with any party. Unless your comments are referring to the support that Andrew has shown for Ron Paul on this site (who is no longer in the race) then I don't see how that was relevant. Was that more of a side-note you wanted other people to see?

I fundamentally disagree with the "lesser-of-the-two-evils" argument. How is progress ever to be achieved when we just hand the baton off to people with varying degrees of evilness? I'm not saying that I have the answer, but I am saying that you are simply representing the two-party paradigm: detached career politicians with ideas that don't end up differing that much from one another.

It seems like you are comparing the McCain supporters "kill him" chant to this guy protesting amongst the Obama candidates in that you think they are both similar misuses of freedom of speech. If you are making this comparison, I don't think that it's valid. Shouting "kill him" is clearly an abuse of free-speech and is also a tangible threat, however some guy with a megaphone shouting that Obama and McCain are the same doesn't threaten anyone's safety. I don't see how he was infringing on anyone else's freedom of speech. Because he was on private property, I can see that authorities had the right to ask him not to use the megaphone or to leave if he was causing a ruckus, but he wasn't hurting anyone. Why do the Obama supporters or McCain supporters have any more right to give their opinions than he?

Sometimes it's nice to take a break from thinking about impending economic doom and have a bier...

see you there!!

This makes me so mad--the talking heads are just trying to divide us Americans--especially the ones that blame it on people not paying their credit cards...

Then during the debates McCain and Obama prance around like they are saying something different from one another. "Shore up the economy!"
No, "Jobs!" No, "End the greed and corruption on Wall Street!" They are all just catch phrases.

Notice how the news of the Fed cutting the rate made the situation worse, and it has continued to get worse.

haha--yeahhhh...I didn't even realize that was supposed to be about his face cancer in the first one...

Not to mention that those who are responsible for 9/11 are the ones we actually needed to be at war with this entire time...

Interesting thoughts Andrew. I pretty much agree that it's not much of a political statement seeing as though most people believe this is an election between McCain and Obama...and seeing as though most college students don't consider McCain to be an option.

Honestly though, while I think your comment on racism is, to a certain extent true, I don't know if not wanting to appear racist would be a motivating factor for supporting Barack Obama.

I'd love to see someone out there sporting a Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr or "F*&4 You, I Voted for Nader in 2004" shirt.

Every four years we buy into the two party system and ostracize those who actually want change.

Nice comment about Obama not being able to screw up before the election and people voting for him even if he did...I mean we pretty much have Bush who has the lowest approval rating of any president ever still in office. And even with the chance to impeach him, people just shrugged their shoulders and said it was too late. I think that attitude exists now.

What shall we do come Election Day? Any ideas? People keep telling me I have to vote, but if there are really only two choices, what should I do?

*&^ lesser of the two evils. I want change.

I'm so sick of people acting like it won't matter if we impeach Bush.

Willie Nelson said it best--"They impeach Bill Clinton for having sex with some girl, but they won't actually impeach Bush for serious crimes."

PS libs have claimed to hate Bush for longest time. Even many Republicans have come around. I think people just like having something to complain about and when the time comes for action they decide they would have nothing to do if something actually got done in this country.

If we impeach Bush, it sends a clear message that the congress is not made of puppets; that the next president better stay in line or he will be out.

Kucinich's articles have definitely challenged the media--they have an agenda and will do anything it takes to black him out or portray what he is trying to do as meaningless, when he is one of the few out there fighting tyranny.

Get it together, America.

but sometimes it's fun to engage in the world of celebrity drama...does pop culture count as an area of knowledge?

more comments to follow...

That is pretty crazy Andrew, I will have to do more research on it. Now I see what made you so upset!

Also, I think it's important that you point out you neither support McCain or Obama...this isn't an Obama bashing site, and anyone running across this article needs to realize that.

People need to see around the false paradigm of party politics and left-right ideology.

Andrew, I know that you don't have all the answers but I would like to see and article that outlines a potential strategy for voters/Americans in the upcoming months before the Nov Elections.

Are we all to abstain? Organize? Does anyone out there have anything to say on the topic of what the American people are to do now that we are faced with tyranny? What should we do in our everyday lives...?

Again, I know that you don't have these answers, but perhaps you could research what scholars or journalists are saying. I know Mises had an article about why a Revolution like the first would fail--are there any other articles?

Yeah ladies, I bet none of you have ever been on a bird-saving date!

Haha, I've never been too much of a counting crows fan either...although a couple songs grew on me.

I understand what you are saying Hans, about unity and "anyone but McCain" but I guess I'm increasingly feeling like we're in the same situation as 2004. I wasn't really a big fan of Kerry but Bush flat out was a moron, and I could already tell it would be a bad idea to get in someone whose father was already in.

Anyway, I just think Obama keeps going back on fundamental promises he made. He seems like an opportunist who is willing to say or do anything to get elected. Obviously many or most politicians are this way, but I suppose I'm just holding him to a higher standard (being a critical thinker and all) and according to you it is that kind of "infighting" that will lead to McCain sitting at the oval office.

I guess I just thought Obama's movement was this grass roots, for the people movement and it seems that it's not that anymore...

What are we the people to do when we don't like either of the candidates?I know that's where partisanship comes in, but I think if this country is going to survive, somehow we need to transcend these political party alliances and go back to the issues; go back to the constitution.

PS I really liked Kucinich...but alas...

Thanks for the comments, it is great to have some dialogue around this place!!

I guess I don't really understand where this Charlie Booker is coming from. How could he say that the U.S. has been accused of false flag ops when they are admitted? I even learned about them in my high school history class.

It seems like he is accusing people who seek truth of being idiots, when his own audience is just plain ignorant of history. They don't really feel the need to do any research on anything and simply call 911 truthers ignorant because it's inconvenient for them to think.

I really appreciate all the comments Hans--that's what we hope to have on our blog.

Okay...so I think many of the opinions you have represent a prevailing misconception about what makes a good president: people focus on how "electable" the candidate is (their charisma and what they say they will do rather than actions). What is wrong with America is that we are led to believe we can only choose between McCain and Obama...this should not be how it works. Neither or candidate represent how most Americans feel about major issues. The media decided early on who its ponies would be and controlled what information got out about the candidates. One poll says, based on issues alone, most people have views that align quite a bit with Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he is no longer in the race, but what he did in this election should remind us in the upcoming votes that we must always do what's right--i.e. follow the constitution.

Just because Obama had to seem like he wasn't "weak on terrorism" is not an excuse to take away our rights.

The only reason that we are putting Obama on blast like this is because he is the democratic nominee. He is an important representative at this time. I think what I really wanted to show here is that this is a sign of more dangerous legislation passing through under the Obama administration.

I hate McCain, but I don't really know how I feel about Obama anymore. I don't even know where I am on the political spectrum anymore. I don't want to engage in this false left-right paradigm.

what do you mean by low-class jobs?

I'm always a little weary of that word "class."

Some would say a garbage man is technically more useful to society than the president of a company...even though they belong to two different classes?

It's definitely a tough issue that needs to be investigated.

"Is this really much different than requiring all drivers to wear seatbelts, or motorcyclists to wear helmets, or telling cigarette companies they can’t advertise to children, or making the legal drinking age 21, or banning trans-fats in some restaurants?"

I guess it's not, in some ways it's not much different...except I don't believe that the government should necessarily need to intervene in some of those things (i.e. requiring drivers to wear seatbelts...if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt, isn't that his problem?) I guess I'm still trying to decide how much impact the gov't should really have in our lives. I'm not against gov't, I just don't really think the gov't can tell people what their weight should be, or mandate a certain weight. Their policies should legislate that certain harmful foods don't make it out on the market (have you noticed how high fructose corn syrup is in EVERYTHING?).

I suppose in some ways, it's just a little scary to think the government could start weighing and measuring us all--would they know where to draw the line? Or would it just turn into some Nazi-creating-the-ultimate-race thing? Isn't it partly government policies that created the obesity problem (i.e. suburbanization). We also receive conflicting info on fats and carbs--the gov't outlawed certain kinds of fat, then companies started using trans fats. Now they say no trans fats...so it's just some other kind of fat.

I'm not totally against companies doing weight-loss challenges. As a matter of fact, my sister participated in one at work. But, I think companies actions are different from those of the federal or state gov't.

We all have responsibilities to ourselves and families--one of those is to stay healthy. If the government actually cares about our health, that's one thing. But to me, it just seems like they are worried about the U.S.'s rep for being a nation of fatties. It also seems like there is some clash with the American work ethic ideal (that you somehow must be thin to be productive...)

I don't know, I'm out of ideas. But it's fun to talk about. I appreciate the response!

haha, I wanted to tone down the seriousness with a cute kitty pic.

Thanks for thinking about the article! I was hoping more people would comment...

Anyway, about "needing to curb human population:" How do we do that? How do you stop people from having kids? Do you see the problem with government sponsored initiatives that fiddle with fertility? Usually initiatives that try to cut fertility are ones such as Planned Parenthood, which tries to stop (usually) low-income individuals from having too many kids...

There's really a lot to think about here. While humans are causing irreversible damage to this planet and we face food crises, it is difficult to suggest that we intentionally focus and having less children being born--something about it seems creepy to me. Also, if there are a lack of resources left on the planet, how is it that we Americans have 24 hr a day access to places like McDonalds, Wegmans, etc which are perpetually full of food and other resources (in the case of wegman's)--this while millions of people live on a dollar a day or less.

About the elite comment: That was kind of a comment directed toward Andrew to post some links to information about evidence that depopulation is an ultimate goal of some organizations...look here for starters. It's a favorite site of Andrew's.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/1...

I liked the first part, but Penn and Teller got outta control. The swearing really prohibits a complete understanding and respect for what they are saying. On the on hand...it lets you know that they are angry and mean business.

Clips like this really help people understand the media blackout of Ron Paul (regardless of whether they actually would believe in him as a candidate).
Things like this are key, because I think it will help people to realize that the media is capable of picking the president. Early on, it was made a race between Hillary and Obama, because I think the media thought that was the most "fun" somehow...

You tell it, Bushido! We need to start making those who govern accountable for their actions, whether it's part of some larger conspiracy or politicians are just plain dumb-asses.

"Honestly, with the US’ capability, it doesn’t matter, it can prosper under any standard, it just has to consider the masses."

That should be part of a song, if it isn't already.

Great idea, Sean--I can't wait to see more from other artists!

Hope you can contribute more sometime Brandon! :)

I agree 100%. I just think his comments were saddening and unfortunately, they reflect the prejudices, hate, and ignorance of so many in our local community.

Lonsberry, you suck, but you have the right to suck...That's what makes this America. He can go on a ridiculous, racist rant, and then I can tell him why he's a jerk.

We can't just go calling for the resignation of people who we don't agree with, but we can turn off their show.

I'm done...

I'm so glad that I watched this video--actually I just listened to it, but it is amazing to hear a soldier so well spoken on this issue.

Bring 'em home!

Stop exploiting the ideals of liberty and honor for the cause of war!

Cui bono?

Bad boys bad boys, watcha gonna do?
Watcha gonna do when they come for you? On a Segway... lol.

Segways kind of make cops look silly...like they are on a skateboard, but Back to the Future style.

How fast can they even go? oh 12-15mph, they just said it. Wait, why isn't a bike good enough?