Traffic Camera REVENGE !!!!

already

just as i thought. you are nothing but a hypocrite. in one breath you attack anyone who would take down a red light camera.. and in the next breath you are telling someone to go break the governer of californias car windshield.. you have some issues that u obviously need to sort out.. good luck with those.

Although I love the enthusiasm, of the person blowing them up, but don't agree with how it was done, but... Each to their own.

Wow!!!!!!!

Amusing video.

Anybody offended by things or ideas needs to learn to relax or learn to not use the internet. Very rarely do I read what even resembles a coherent thought on the internet about anything related to politics. Alas, most people are almost as incoherent in person.

Most people are silly hypocrites and do things in complete contradiction to their beliefs. I have an acquaintance, for example, who believes in big government and taxation on the incomes of individuals to pay for it, yet he doesn't pay taxes on the bulk of his income which he gets paid in cash. Unfortunately, I am reminded every election season that this clown consistently votes. Humbug. It is also unfortunate that I am morally opposed to reporting these violations to the IRS, because the IRS would give reward me with up to 15% of the collected proceeds.

Move on with life and find something better to do with your time. Enjoy videos such as this, or don't; either way move on with life.

Keep it civil guys and gals or I will close this thread...

Miss POI

wow thats crazy

LOL, very cool. Hopefully they didn't use there home comp to up load that vedio.

bump

Hey Thanks!
And It's Arnold the Govenator right?
It's not the cameras I defend, it's the laws created by people that get elected. Then there are the people like yourself with Ideas that are 200 years old and written for a country about 30% of the size of this one is now. The vigilante attitude gets nothing solved in today's world, because this is no longer the wild west, Like I said earlier I see your mindset. And you should make sure you know what the heck your talking about when you speak of someones lead foot, cause I have nothing to worry about on that subject, because if the speed limit is 60 I do 60 not 68. The remark about Arnold was to show how your mind works, if it's ok by you to burn or blow up a Enforcement Camera, Then I'm sure your mindset would allow you to smash Arnolds Window, because he also stands for some law that conforms you in one way or another, and I would bet you don't like it a bit. Southern California and yourself deserve one another.
I have had enough of this conversation, however if you feel the need to carry it on, I'm game..

Bump

Dude, I think your 'banana hammock' is on a little too tight, and cutting off circulation to the brain.

And, BTW, I don't think the Constitution is out of date, nor irrelevant in these times. It's sad that you do.

IMHO...

Not really imo. Unless of course you were objectifying this more metaphorical statement of his and assume the 'actions alluded to' were advocating bloodshed in ALL cases of tyranny. Otherwise I see it as very similar to the 'adolescent' behavior of ruining someone's very expensive property (tea) by dumping it in a harbor.

As well you should be. Pity though, that it sounds as if you consider liberty as radical, and the metaphorical manifestation of it as sacrificial.

Because they aren't philosophical writings to that end. They are specific documents that state simply and in in plain English the objective reasoning upon which it was chosen to overthrow the acting government by force and create a new sovereign nation, and state some of the most important rights that the new governance would not encroach upon.

I can see why this seems to be a mysterious 'disconnect' in our times. Today, even if we believed (as we surely do) that all men were created equal and intended to create a new government where that would come to fruition as daily practice.. were the opposite the case and so deeply embedded in current daily life.. no doubt that those drafting the act of rebellion would have chosen to be politically correct, not make 'waves', and simply omitted it from the text.

Step back a bit and tell me you don't think this 'fetishism of the law' has increased since we've been at 'war'. Always does in times of war. Except this is a bit more insidious since we don't have a clearly defined and identified enemy. And it will only be 'over' when we are told it is.

Nah. It's the thing to do if the cameras give you the creeps and no one is listening. And when they put up the surveillance of the surveillance, throw that one in the harbor as well. Or wait for someone else to. More than half of the voting age population doesn't even bother to play that political game. Ever wonder who's side THEY are on?

I know we're 'only talking about traffic cameras here!', but rarely does the end justify the means, and frequently when you give them an inch they'll take your whole back yard.

I swore an oath 3 times in my lifetime to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I've been around the world many times in every sh&% hole there is, and there is nowhere like the USA.

Here in Maryland, where speed cameras are rapidly procreating, I would more enjoy video of plow trucks trying to keep up with the recent snowmageddon innocently take out a few of the evil beasts.

I feel they're there for profit (which mostly goes to the contactors who install them) and not public safety, and agree with an earlier post that we need to vote out those who support them.

Thank you for your service, and I agree that there is nowhere else like it or probably ever will be.

And should I ever be deemed a domestic enemy I understand your conviction to principal and duty and what you are honor bound to do.

Just bear in mind that I may have a differing opinion of The Constitution's enemies than your chain of command does.

My heart felt thanks to all our military folks who put their very lives on the line for all our sakes, having a great nation depends on each of them!

LOL LOL LOL i totally agree !!

And to you I send a grateful thanks for your service!And I couldn't agree with you more.

There are much easier and safer ways to deal with your dislike of trafic cams, ideed....

dare i say my favorite is spray paint?

And your signature reads as follows,

"Sharing the valid opinions and actions of politicians and laws they legislate is healthy, just remember they are elected, and you must live by the laws they create. Don't like the Camera's, then campaign against them to have them removed."

So I gather from your post and sig line that if we had made the same mistake that the Germans made by ELECTING a Fascist Dictator and legislators that passed our equivalent of the "Nuremberg Laws" (See this link if you do not know what they are:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob14.html ) You would just live by those laws. Remember "I was just following orders" did work very well in 1945-49. However you might like to try it some time.

A perfect rebuttal.

Let me get this straight, you believe in vigilantism?
Screw the laws, and take matters into your own hands?

And what does the holocaust have to do with a traffic camera? A little over the top huh! not even a good comparison.

I don't want the cameras either, I just don't agree with violence to solve problems. Now if you want to call me a Nazi then so be it. But I'm not and I am a Law abiding person that believes our system works.

The people that twist my words to make their points, really don't need to do so, or even blow up cameras as far as that goes.
Just slow down, stop on red and before turning right and you will have no problem.

Do I believe that the camera need to go? Of course I do just like you do, I would much rather have cops getting a check then a camera taking pictures. A cop can be reasoned with, and a camera is a indiscriminate snapper but does have a very high accuracy rate.

Oh before I forget, Hitler was not elected supreme leader.

Hitler became Führer (Supreme Leader) on August 2, 1934: he'd been Chancellor of Germany since January 30, 1933. Very technically, Hitler was never actually elected, but he did take power legally under the laws of the then-Weimar Republic, which he almost immediately abolished. Until Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis never held an actual majority in the government and the parliament.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor under President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, as part of a coalition government originally intended to hold the wobbly democracy together, but Hitler wanted no democracy and engineered things so that President Hindenburg was forced to dissolve parliament and hold new elections. Using violence and anti-Communist hysteria to their advantage, on election day, March 6, 1933, the Nazis increased their result to 44% of the vote, making them the largest party in Germany, but still not giving them an absolute majority. Nevertheless, continuing to use violence or the threat of it, plus clever political subterfuge, Hitler consolidated his power in the parliament until he had successfully, and apparently legally, suppressed all the other political parties.

When Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler's cabinet passed a law transferring the power of the presidency to Hitler as both Chancellor and Führer (Leader).

SO you see the The Nuremberg Laws would have never been inacted if the people of Germany would have had elected officials, that could be taken out by voting them out if you don't like the job being done by them.

Even though I'm not a democrat, I stand by the Democracy of the United States. And I couldn't imagine living anywhere else, we aren't censored as citizens, and you are protected to whatever you like as long as you don't break the laws. If you break the laws you pay the price. If you don't like the laws that govern you become a campaigner against them and the legislators that created the laws.

Yep, you ARE over the top. The holocaust was never mentioned. Ever.

No Huh? You are just pissed because your the OP of this thread, and you happened to think it was funny and I didn't.. To bad...

The Nurenberg laws made the holocaust possible!

Nazi Racial Legislation: The Nuremberg Laws
One of the earliest statements of the Nazi party--the policy document of 1920 known as the Twenty-Five Points--explicitly foreshadowed the exclusion of Jews from German citizenship (Point 4).Thus, as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, no time was lost in proceeding against Germany's Jewish citizens. In the early months of the regime, they were prey to unbridled violence by Party activists during the so-called Brown Terror. Officially, steps were immediately taken to dismiss Jews from the civil service, reduce their number in the professions, and curtail the students in schools and colleges. Partly as a ploy to bring order to the shameless Party activism against inoffensive citizens and to clarify the regime's attitude to German Jewry, the two measures outlined below were passed at a meeting of the Party Congress at Nuremberg on Sept. 15, 1935.
Two of the laws are outlined below. The third, the Reich Flag Act, decreed the new German national flag to be the Nazi swastika flag.

Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor
Firm in the knowledge that the purity of German blood is the basis for the survival of the German people and inspired by the unshakeable determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Section 1
Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or some related blood are forbidden.
Such marriages contracted despite the law are invalid, even if they take place abroad in order to avoid the law.

Section 2
Sexual relations outside marriage between Jews and citizens of German or related blood are forbidden.

Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens of German or related blood who are under 45 years as housekeepers.

Section 4
1. Jews are forbidden to raise the national flag or display the national colors.
2. However, they are allowed to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.

Section 5
1. Anyone who disregards Section 1 is liable to penal servitude.
2. Anyone who disregards the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or penal servitude.
3. Anyone who disregards the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to one year or with a fine, or with one of these penalties.
. . . .

The Reich Citizenship Law, 1935
Article 1
Section 1
A German subject is one who is a member of the protective union of the German Reich and is bound to it by special obligations. . . .

Section 2
1. A Reich citizen is that subject who is of German or related blood only and who through his behavior demonstrates that he is ready and able to serve faithfully the German people and Reich.
2. The right to citizenship of the Reich is acquired by the grant of citizenship papers.
3. A citizen of the Reich is the sole bearer of full political rights as provided by the law.

In the subsequent clarifying regulation of Nov. 14, 1935, a Jew was defined as anyone who was descended from: (a) at least three racially full Jewish grandparents or (b) two full Jewish parents if he or she belonged to the Jewish religious c ommunity (i.e., an observing Jew); was married to a Jewish person; was the offspring of a full Jew (as defined in a.) or the offspring of an extramarital relationship with a full Jew. Neither could a Jew be a citizen of the Reich, vote or hold public offi ce.
Incidentally, persons of mixed Jewish blood (i.e., half-Jews--with one or two Jewish grandparents) were absolved from these restrictions, though, again, Jewish observance tightened the restrictions.

I guess you decided to carry on this discussion with me.. well lets make it good.... I said my last post to you that I was done.. then you decided we weren't.. that's okay and being the united states we do have the ability to voice our option and not be censored.

You:"Let me get this straight, you believe in vigilantism? Screw the laws, and take matters into your own hands?"

Me: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You: And what does the holocaust have to do with a traffic camera? A little over the top huh! not even a good comparison.

Me: I never mentioned the Holocaust. I referred to the Nuremberg Laws. Laws passed by an elected body of legislators.

You: SO you see the The Nuremberg Laws would have never been inacted if the people of Germany would have had elected officials, that could be taken out by voting them out if you don't like the job being done by them.

Me: Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

So Hitler had is power delegated to him by an ELECTED body of legislators.

You: Even though I'm not a democrat, I stand by the Democracy of the United States. And I couldn't imagine living anywhere else, we aren't censored as citizens, and you are protected to whatever you like as long as you don't break the laws. If you break the laws you pay the price. If you don't like the laws that govern you become a campaigner against them and the legislators that created the laws.

Me: Lets look at the Patriot Act, if a sitting president decides that any individual, even you for example, are an enemy combatant you can be arrested and held with out charge, any rights to trial, or legal representation until the sitting chief executive (President) decides to have a disposition that he/she alone chooses at their pleasure.

You: we aren't censored as citizens, and you are protected to whatever you like as long as you don't break the laws. If you break the laws you pay the price.

Me: In my opinion you put far to much faith in elected legislators. The Patriot Act vote total
Senate 98-1
House 357-66

This thread will be locked first thing in the morning guys, get it out of your systems tonight. Keep it civil or it will be shut down tonight.

Miss POI

It is a a mostly civil discussion, no one is name calling. Yet

No, I'm NOT the OP to this thread, and I'm not the one who's 'pissed'. Check the mirror, pal...

.

lol

shit happens.

wow, at least it was done late night when no one was around

Before Miss POI closes the thread I thought I should say that I thought it was funny too. Close to the edge .. but funny. Those wacky Fins, gotta love 'em. And like was mentioned, at least they did it in the middle of the night.

I am not a great lover of speed cameras or red-light cameras, but we are a nation of laws. I for one believe that speed cams and red light cams should be illegal; that a living police officer should be the one writing citations for violating speed and red- light violation laws. However, no one can justify the destruction of private property. (And, I mean nobody.) To advocate something such as this is wrong and is against the very laws of our nation. And, the person (whoever it may be), should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law possible when and if caught.

I can only hope a person like yourself will spend a lot of time in the penitentiary with your vigilantism,anachronism and terrorism thoughts,when you bring your dangerous thoughts to life.

There is a huge difference in thinking and wishing the destruction of the property of others. Then there is actually doing it. The first is healthy the second is deviate behavior. And since you condone violence I know your mind set.
Hey I want to thank you for the history lesson from 200 years ago... Like I didn't already know that....If I were you I would be more concerned about the silly laws you live under in S. CA. Go break Arnold's windshield since he won't let you use a windshield mount. You know that Sacramento has a zero tolerance policy for common sense, that's where you should focus your attention.

Nice !

SO you do not want us to have debate on anything here?
nice to know....

Mind you - this disscussion is directly related to the forum. We talk about speed cameras all the time. There are Speed Camera POI files here. There are a lot of legitimate issues to discuss regarding speed cameras, even if those discussions SEEM to take us far away from speed cameras.

Lets also consider that Garmin Software uploading route and track info to garmin's website has the potential for serious political impacts as well. The constitution makes it MUCH easier to compell a 3rd party (garmin in this case) to turn over records of a persons movements than it is to force the person to turn them over.

Just because the discussion gets heated, is that a reason to shut it down?

this has morphed into more than just a debate.

There is no reason to close this thread, we are a community of adults. I myself can take the heat and find it to be great conversation. Censorship is no different than the bombing of the camera, and that would be pitiful to say the least.

Most nations are. And I'm sure it's illegal in Finland too.

I agree with you on private property, but I think you meant public property in this case, and 99.999% of the time I agree with you there too (re my previous British tea reference). Thinking it's entertaining doesn't necessarily mean you advocate it by the way. Imo destroying them is as paradoxical as putting them in service.

Here's a guy that should really make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up I guess-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSguQg_bK38

There is no reason to close this thread, we are a community of adults. I myself can take the heat and find it to be great conversation. Censorship is no different than the bombing of the camera, and that would be pitiful to say the least.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of censorship?

As foolish as shutting this thread dow is - it is NOT censorship in the way most people thing of censorship. Using the LAW to shut down certain things is radically different than Miss POI shutting them down, regardless of how foolish i think that would be. Lets be clear on that.

I prefer personally to save the word cencorship for when the law gets involved in such things

I agree that these threads are great conversation! And besides, studies show that it's good for old folks like me to fire off as many brain synapses as you can.

I'm addicted to Miss POI's house because there just isn't any other place on the net where you can find so many different points of view.

But.. it IS her house, and she does a great job of keeping it safe & sane .. so I trust her judgment and it's her call.

Censorship .. yet another 'thread poi'! .. I love it.

It may have been talked about here but a better solution was what happened in Chicago recently and that was an orginized red light camera protest. For what it's worth in my opinion destroying public property is'nt cool.

Flip