US Taliban in Action - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 03:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
All it takes is a visitor or another employee to complain that a given sign is politically offensive and it's out the door, johnny.

Some fed installations are very strict and others don't care. It gets especially heated during the quadrennial vote.

Federal employees and contractors have several legal restrictions on their rights and it is all clearly explained when you go to get sworn-in or sign-in. Many if not most places are pretty strict near election times and pretty lax the rest of the time.

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 04:16 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
All it takes is a visitor or another employee to complain that a given sign is politically offensive and it's out the door, johnny.

Some fed installations are very strict and others don't care. It gets especially heated during the quadrennial vote.

Federal employees and contractors have several legal restrictions on their rights and it is all clearly explained when you go to get sworn-in or sign-in. Many if not most places are pretty strict near election times and pretty lax the rest of the time.

B
You did not answer the core of my question. Of course people are not usually going to object to what's politically correct but I am certain if somone complained about a yellow ribbon sticker with the support our troops he will get no traction.

It's funny how the rules work....
Shabah is offline  
post #13 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 04:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 6:16 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
All it takes is a visitor or another employee to complain that a given sign is politically offensive and it's out the door, johnny.

Some fed installations are very strict and others don't care. It gets especially heated during the quadrennial vote.

Federal employees and contractors have several legal restrictions on their rights and it is all clearly explained when you go to get sworn-in or sign-in. Many if not most places are pretty strict near election times and pretty lax the rest of the time.

B
You did not answer the core of my question. Of course people are not usually going to object to what's politically correct but I am certain if somone complained about a yellow ribbon sticker with the support our troops he will get no traction.

It's funny how the rules work....
I must have missed your question and then couldn't figure it out even after you said I missed it.

Can you state it clearly?
Botnst is offline  
post #14 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 05:46 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 6:27 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 6:16 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
All it takes is a visitor or another employee to complain that a given sign is politically offensive and it's out the door, johnny.

Some fed installations are very strict and others don't care. It gets especially heated during the quadrennial vote.

Federal employees and contractors have several legal restrictions on their rights and it is all clearly explained when you go to get sworn-in or sign-in. Many if not most places are pretty strict near election times and pretty lax the rest of the time.

B
You did not answer the core of my question. Of course people are not usually going to object to what's politically correct but I am certain if somone complained about a yellow ribbon sticker with the support our troops he will get no traction.

It's funny how the rules work....
I must have missed your question and then couldn't figure it out even after you said I missed it.

Can you state it clearly?
Say you and I worked together at a federal facility. We both drove in one morning, parked our cars on federal property (or even elswhere) and we went to work or just waisted time on Benzworld. While we are arguing online, yet our offices are right next each other (hell I can even hear you fart while I fight back with a belsh), some guard is doing the rounds and see our bumper stickers. Yours says, Yeeha Shock an Aw Let them Count Their Dead, while mine says something gay like Bush is Liar his Pants is on Fire. Who do you think will get a page to meet to the man????
Shabah is offline  
post #15 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 06:00 PM
jjl
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 280SE 280CE 560SEL
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Shabah, unlike the mickey-mouse pseudo-fascist response of those library officials, without knowing the details of the specific HS regulations I suspect all political displays would get equal 'treatment'; I could of course be wrong, but without some evidence I don't see how anyone can decide this other than shout and arm-wave.
jjl is offline  
post #16 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 06:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
jjl - 2/17/2006 8:00 PM

Shabah, unlike the mickey-mouse pseudo-fascist response of those library officials, without knowing the details of the specific HS regulations I suspect all political displays would get equal 'treatment'; I could of course be wrong, but without some evidence I don't see how anyone can decide this other than shout and arm-wave.
jjl, in other words the US will be no different than say most Arab countries. Anyone pretending to hold freedom so dear must take the responsibility to accept other's opinions no matter how unpopular. I mean the cartoons should have been a hint here since they were made cause celebre as part of free speech...

The problem is that the US is turning into a Taliban state on their own people which means they will have no problem spreading that dogma onto others. This is exactly what the Taliban were after; the errosion of civil liberties. They know if the US, Britain and others turned into fascist states that would be the end of "empire" like they see it...
Shabah is offline  
post #17 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 07:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 7:46 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 6:27 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 6:16 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Shabah - 2/17/2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 2/17/2006 3:12 PM

Was that a federal employee on federal property? If so, when he took employment he agreed to the conditions of federal employment. It looked to me like the officer was polite and doing his job. The guy with the tape recorder was goading him, to which the officer would not respond. The officer stuck with what he was doing.

The officer does not interpret the law. If the employee believes he is right he should take it up through various internal mechanisms or hire an outside attorney and fight it.

In other words, what is the big deal?
Ok, Bot what if he had support our troops signs on his truck?? which I know that would be the case of many vehicles in that parking lot. Does the law apply in one direction? If they had to harrass him for a sign then they should do the same with others even if the message is pro-Bush or pro-war. doesn't the law apply equaly????
All it takes is a visitor or another employee to complain that a given sign is politically offensive and it's out the door, johnny.

Some fed installations are very strict and others don't care. It gets especially heated during the quadrennial vote.

Federal employees and contractors have several legal restrictions on their rights and it is all clearly explained when you go to get sworn-in or sign-in. Many if not most places are pretty strict near election times and pretty lax the rest of the time.

B
You did not answer the core of my question. Of course people are not usually going to object to what's politically correct but I am certain if somone complained about a yellow ribbon sticker with the support our troops he will get no traction.

It's funny how the rules work....
I must have missed your question and then couldn't figure it out even after you said I missed it.

Can you state it clearly?
Say you and I worked together at a federal facility. We both drove in one morning, parked our cars on federal property (or even elswhere) and we went to work or just waisted time on Benzworld. While we are arguing online, yet our offices are right next each other (hell I can even hear you fart while I fight back with a belsh), some guard is doing the rounds and see our bumper stickers. Yours says, Yeeha Shock an Aw Let them Count Their Dead, while mine says something gay like Bush is Liar his Pants is on Fire. Who do you think will get a page to meet to the man????
That certainly very much depends on the facility. if we were parking at a gung-ho military base I wouldn't park near your car. But if it were a parking lot in State Dept or Dept of Interior then you probably wouldn't park near my car.

The US gov is NOT monolithic. Just because the screwball on top says something sure as heck doesn't mean everybody salutes and charges (except the military). (Just look at the problem the Current Occupant is having with the CIA leaking stuff that is counter to his policy. That particular game has been worked by CIA since Dulles. Every president has tried to figure out how to stop it and they just cannot. The CIA is factionalized, perhaps balkanized. They will leak to hurt and admin with which they disagree. It sure as heck happened a lot to Clinton. I think it sucks. The CIA should be there to provide intel, not follow or impede policy.)

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #18 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-17-2006, 09:38 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1986 300SDL
Location: Boston
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: US Taliban in Action

Here's the statute, you decide:

Posting and Distributing Materials Sec. 102-74.415 What is the policy for posting and distributing materials? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from: (a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around Federal buildings, under Public Law 104-52, Section 636. (b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property, except as authorized in Sec. 102-74.410, or when these displays are conducted as part of authorized Government activities. (c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in Sec. 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building's manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.

Soliciting, Vending and Debt Collection Sec. 102-74.410 What is the policy concerning soliciting, vending and debt collection? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from soliciting commercial or political donations, vending merchandise of all kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising, or collecting private debts, except for: (a) National or local drives for funds for welfare, health or other purposes as authorized by 5 CFR part 950, entitled ``Solicitation Of Federal Civilian And Uniformed Service Personnel For Contributions To Private Voluntary Organizations,'' and sponsored or approved by the occupant agencies; (b) Concessions or personal notices posted by employees on authorized bulletin boards; (c) Solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by occupant agencies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454); and (d) Lessee, or its agents and employees, with respect to space leased for commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational use under the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (40 U.S.C. 490(a)(16)). Public areas of GSA-controlled property may be used for other activities in accordance with subpart D of this part.
LK ONE is offline  
post #19 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-18-2006, 03:37 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Shabah's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: US Taliban in Action

OK, here is a strange one:http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060216105511114

Quote:
Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 10:55 AM PST
Contributed by: arch_stanton
Views: 260

Spying on YouHouston police chief Harol Hurtt has a delusion -- several, actually, but the one I'm referencing at the moment is his notion that installing surveillance cameras will help Houstonians feel safer and reduce crime. Hurtt not only wants to put cameras in public spaces downtown, he also wants to force new malls and apartment complexes to install camera systems with direct feeds to the police department as part of the building permit process, maybe even in private homes.

Over the top: Houston chief wants cameras in apartments, private homes

Houston police chief Harol Hurtt has a delusion -- several, actually, but the one I'm referencing at the moment is his notion that installing surveillance cameras will help Houstonians feel safer and reduce crime. Hurtt not only wants to put cameras in public spaces downtown, he also wants to force new malls and apartment complexes to install camera systems with direct feeds to the police department as part of the building permit process, maybe even in private homes.

As for privacy, Hurtt told reporters, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Uh, because you respect the Constitution and personal liberty, maybe? The KGB used that same line in Communist Russia, one recalls, on their way to filling up a system of gulags.

Beyond privacy concerns there's a bigger problem: empirically cameras simply don't reduce crime. London, England today is the most surveilled city in the world. You supposedly can no longer walk outside in London without your image being captured by police on CCTV, or closed circuit television, as the Brits refer to it. Those cameras were installed in reaction to IRA terrorism, and are as integrated into their day-to-day police practices as any city in the world. Their cops have invested a lot of capital, political and monetary, into promoting them.

Facts are facts, though, and when the British Home Office (that nation's top law enforcement agency) last year released a long-term study on the topic, it revealed that surveillance cameras didn't reduce crime, confirming previous research. Reported the 2-24-05 London Evening Standard:

The findings [came] as a blow to the Home Office, which has trumpeted CCTV as a key crime-fighting weapon for the past 10 years.
The report's author, Professor Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, said: "For supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not make people feel safer."

The only one of the 14 schemes found to be a success was targeted at car parks, where it led to a significant drop in vehicle crime. Other schemes in city centres, residential areas and hospitals produced no clear benefits.


I know Hurtt probably doesn't read the British papers, and to be fair this is a fad among many in US law enforcement, but London's experience shows that, as a crime fighting tool, surveillance cameras are an expensive, fruitless boondoggle outside very narrow, well-defined circumstances. I've discussed before reasons why that might be true. Plus, as I told the Associated Press:

"Cameras can be defeated with very high tech means, like sunglasses and hats and disguises," Henson said, laughing. "So it is very easy to thwart the cameras, but if something happens, officers have to watch hours and hours and hours of video. And while they are doing that, they are not investigating crimes."
That last bit about cops wasting time watching video isn't just me talking. I borrowed the notion from a London cop/blogger who wrote in January that "CCTV viewing occupies a disproportionate amount of police time with very little tangible result. This fact is well known to street criminals." When both cops and the street criminals know cameras don't actually combat crime, the only reason left to favor camers is to fool the public into thinking you're doing something as a PR stunt.

While cameras may not make us safer, there's no question they make us more exposed to possible privacy violations. Mayor White needs to shut down this bad idea before it gets off the ground. As I wrote earlier this morning, if Houston thinks they need more enforcement, the city should hire more cops - to quote a past Grits commenter, "There's no replacement for boots on the ground - none."
Yeah like I want a camera on me while I am on Benzworld and sometimes digging for China or scratching the canyons, that would be a sight to behold
[xx(]
Shabah is offline  
post #20 of 20 (permalink) Old 02-18-2006, 03:50 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
94Wagenmeister's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2005
Vehicle: 85 300 TDT
Location: The DC Burbs
Posts: 2,260
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 94Wagenmeister
RE: US Taliban in Action

That's MY library. They better keep their mits off my porn!
94Wagenmeister is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome