• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Photos in a Federal Building. What?

Not only did they bring it on themselves but there was nary a complaint when GW Bush grew Govt. more than any other modern President. You reap what you sow.

And so now the left sticks up for the big government nanny statism that their hater GW brought for them. I wasn't old enough to vote against that stuff. I only like Jeb as Florida governor because he did some good for us.

George bush is gone. Stop making excuses.
 
And so now the left sticks up for the big government nanny statism that their hater GW brought for them. I wasn't old enough to vote against that stuff. I only like Jeb as Florida governor because he did some good for us.

George bush is gone. Stop making excuses.

He may be gone but his legacy of bigger Govt and bigger deficits. survives. The irony is that he is not he only GOP President to grow Govt. and double our debt. It is really their thing.
 
I don't disagree. As for the whole camera phone thing? True, but regulations rarely keep up with the technology.

As long as the regulations are on the book, I guess we should follow. Many laws and restrictions don't make much sense, but going against them isn't the greatest first step.
 
He may be gone but his legacy of bigger Govt and bigger deficits. survives. The irony is that he is not he only GOP President to grow Govt. and double our debt. It is really their thing.

That is the legacy of federal politicians.
 
I took photos of my wife and stepchildren being sworn in as U.S. citizens in federal buildings and no one said a word.

That's a fact.
 
I took photos of my wife and stepchildren being sworn in as U.S. citizens in federal buildings and no one said a word.

That's a fact.

I wonder if they make special exemptions?
 
So that is your response? You are completely ok with arbitrary rules on your life that cannot be justified. Sacrifice your rights in the name of worship to the mighty government?

Is there no amount of government foot licking the left wing lunatics won't cave to? How pathetic.

But loads of federal and government buildings have a photography and filming ban. Sadly that is one of the results of the Patriot act and the crackdown due to the war on terror.

Because sadly a terrorist could use pictures from inside a building to survey security, etc. etc. etc.

You may not like it but it is a government building and in there they make the rules.
 
Armed security because the federal government and their rules are more important than my life. At least that is what the left believes.

Nope, the security of you and everybody in that building are more important that your right to make photographs inside a federal building.
 
But loads of federal and government buildings have a photography and filming ban. Sadly that is one of the results of the Patriot act and the crackdown due to the war on terror.

Because sadly a terrorist could use pictures from inside a building to survey security, etc. etc. etc.

You may not like it but it is a government building and in there they make the rules.

They are OUR government. Ergo WE make the rules. This is America. We are supposed to control the government. The government isn't there to control us.

And bringing up the patriot act doesn't change this. It doesn't justify the continuance of the policy. It doesn't make it on under a democrat in office. I disagree with the patriot act. It is not an adequate defense of this "measure."

So going back to the topic: why the hell are we letting the government stop us from snapping a picture inside the public area of a public building that we technically own?

Seriously. What are we stopping in an age of cell phones able to record the entire interior without difficulty in high resolution or a complete panoramic?
 
Nope, the security of you and everybody in that building are more important that your right to make photographs inside a federal building.

My security, and the security of everyone else does not matter. They have no duty to protect me. Ergo nobodies security is relevant in that building. But they better be ready to shoot to kill over a picture.
 
My security, and the security of everyone else does not matter. They have no duty to protect me. Ergo nobodies security is relevant in that building. But they better be ready to shoot to kill over a picture.

That is your opinion, but as it is their building, they can set the rules. And if they decide that taking pictures of filming inside is banned than people have to hold themselves to those rules. I may disagree with that and think they should loosen up, it is still up to them to enforce their rules.
 
They are OUR government. Ergo WE make the rules. This is America. We are supposed to control the government. The government isn't there to control us.

And bringing up the patriot act doesn't change this. It doesn't justify the continuance of the policy. It doesn't make it on under a democrat in office. I disagree with the patriot act. It is not an adequate defense of this "measure."

So going back to the topic: why the hell are we letting the government stop us from snapping a picture inside the public area of a public building that we technically own?

Seriously. What are we stopping in an age of cell phones able to record the entire interior without difficulty in high resolution or a complete panoramic?

No, we elect politicians who make rules based on the reality of the situation (terrorism) or to protect oursevles.

And we are supposed to control the rule making, it is not our duty to control the government. but we are there to review the government actions (by way of the judiciary) and by voting against a government in office.

And the government is a bit there to control us because we have given them that duty/order/right.

I too disagree with most of the Patriot act, but sadly politicians (urged to do so by the public and the media) often overreact to situations. They do not let cooler heads prevail (or that is how it most often is).

And again, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with making pictures but as said, it is their rules just like you can decide which rules (within reason) go in your house.
 
What? I was at the post office today and went to take a picture of my tracking number. The man behind the counter wouldn't let Me. So instead I typed it in to my phone. But seriously. What? I can't take a picture? Can anyone please share some thoughts on this? Doesn't that seem a little...hinky? Violation of some kind of free information?

its their building and they make the rules, theres not violation here or rights you lost.
 
I'm guessing it might be seen as a security issue.

Dept. of Homeland Security rule I'm guessing.

As far as the cons here complaining about their 'freedoms'. Stop defending the Patriot Act, Homeland security, the NSA, etc. Then people might pay attention to you complaints about 'freedoms' and rights. You guys brought this kind of stuff on yourself.

Quit it. Obama has been in no hurry to end any of it. I don't defend any of it, especially the Patriot Act.
 
Quit it. Obama has been in no hurry to end any of it. I don't defend any of it, especially the Patriot Act.

No he hasn't.

But that still doesn't excuse Cons/Republicans who EVERYTIME defend the police when they shoot an unarmed person. Or when they scream for Snowden's head because they have no problem with what the NSA is doing. Or when they defend the Patriot Act simply because of politics and their defense of anything done during the Bush/Cheney Admin.

Again, the right's silence has helped bring on these police state like tactics. So when I hear them whine about their loss of 'rights and freedoms' I find it especially sad.

If you truly DON'T defend these things then you are in the minority of Cons.
 
Which is silly. We are talking about an era when every cell phone had a camera. You can google the pictures. We are talking about an area that is impossible to defend for 1 reason: there are many.

Fear is not a good reason to restrict people's freedom to live their lives.

I feel your pain. The government recently passed a law that no one can take pictures of farms, especially factory farms where animals are raised and/or slaughtered without the farmer's permission. Not even from the road and off their property. Don't people have a right to know about the food they eat and where it comes from?
 
I feel your pain. The government recently passed a law that no one can take pictures of farms, especially factory farms where animals are raised and/or slaughtered without the farmer's permission. Not even from the road and off their property. Don't people have a right to know about the food they eat and where it comes from?

I thought you were kidding until I Googled this....................geeees!
 
Only a left winger would consider freedom and rights "petty"

leftys are incapable of criticizing big government. but, they have a vested interest in that position, being entirely dependent on the productivity of their betters.
 
What? I was at the post office today and went to take a picture of my tracking number. The man behind the counter wouldn't let Me. So instead I typed it in to my phone. But seriously. What? I can't take a picture? Can anyone please share some thoughts on this? Doesn't that seem a little...hinky? Violation of some kind of free information?
Is there anything that's too petty for a right winger to whine about?
So that is your response? You are completely ok with arbitrary rules on your life that cannot be justified. Sacrifice your rights in the name of worship to the mighty government?

Is there no amount of government foot licking the left wing lunatics won't cave to? How pathetic.
Oh, the quandary.

On the one hand, sangha is pretty much just a contrarian that likes to stir schiet, and this comes off as nothing more than that. One's rights are not petty by any means.

But, on the other hand, blackjack50 is one who routinely spews crap about how we should always "foot lick" police and pretty much anybody in a government authority position... unless it counters something he wants to do, apparently. He would not portray it that way, of course, but that's the truth.
 
Last edited:
No he hasn't.

But that still doesn't excuse Cons/Republicans who EVERYTIME defend the police when they shoot an unarmed person. Or when they scream for Snowden's head because they have no problem with what the NSA is doing. Or when they defend the Patriot Act simply because of politics and their defense of anything done during the Bush/Cheney Admin.

Again, the right's silence has helped bring on these police state like tactics. So when I hear them whine about their loss of 'rights and freedoms' I find it especially sad.

If you truly DON'T defend these things then you are in the minority of Cons.

No one has a crystal ball, but 9/11 or something similar would have happened anyway, because we the country were the target, not the CIC. The so-called Patriot Act would have happened under a President Gore, also.
 
No one has a crystal ball, but 9/11 or something similar would have happened anyway, because we the country were the target, not the CIC. The so-called Patriot Act would have happened under a President Gore, also.

Yes, possibly.

But the right is usually the 'security' at all cost people. Usually they have no problem with the police and Fed agencies ****ting all over our freedoms in the name of 'keeping us safe'.

In thread after thread we see it here. And no I am NOT accusing all Cons, but the majority pick law and order and security over anything else. so when things like this no photos in the P.O. happen, they really shouldn't complain.
 
I'm guessing it might be seen as a security issue.

Dept. of Homeland Security rule I'm guessing.

As far as the cons here complaining about their 'freedoms'. Stop defending the Patriot Act, Homeland security, the NSA, etc. Then people might pay attention to you complaints about 'freedoms' and rights. You guys brought this kind of stuff on yourself.


I have to admit there is more than a little truth behind that statement. Tends to be that way for a lot issues for a lot of people and their sacred cows.
 
Think about the kind of installations which are federal buildings and get back to me.

Here's a hint: there was this big deal called the Cold War a while back, and this country called the Soviet Union which employed a number of very efficient intelligence agencies which would love to photograph all sorts of interesting info.


I would point out we are talking about the post office. Unless the government has taken up my idea of affixing stamps to our ICBM's and handing control of the arsenal to our post master general, I would suggest that the notion of not photographing the post office is a rather silly rule.

By the way no photographs in ANY federal building is silly.
 
Yes, possibly.

But the right is usually the 'security' at all cost people. Usually they have no problem with the police and Fed agencies ****ting all over our freedoms in the name of 'keeping us safe'.

In thread after thread we see it here. And no I am NOT accusing all Cons, but the majority pick law and order and security over anything else. so when things like this no photos in the P.O. happen, they really shouldn't complain.
Oh, totally agree. The right are the ones on the soap box screaming "security security security", but the Dems go along with it and don't lift a finger to scale it back when they have the power to do so. The only difference, IMO, is that the Reps preach it and the Dems do it silently.
 
Back
Top Bottom