What can I say?

But you are a low-down, out and out, dirty liar.

If you are insulted

I am insulted by direct falsehoods, and their repeated assertations after being (mistakingly presuming they were innocent mistake) corrected.

I see there is no point. If you get in a corner, you lie.

It is only in *your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will.

Nope.

Been stated many times.

The only way you could say that was that you - you are implementing the "Big Lie".

Like I told you before - you are the falsehood-spouting mouthpiece of irrational 'meedja'... Talk not of Rush, of the Meedja - for you speak of yourself.

Except now I realise you're doing it on *purpose*.

So while I attempt to use facts, and correctly state what (at least I think, and beg pardon if I misunderstand) people are saying, you are out spreading lies. Lies lies and more lies.

What more can I say? I tell the truth, you lie.

I presume its a mistake, you lie more. So fine - continue your dishonesty. Not a lot of my business - and I'll just tarnish *my* reputation and *my* honor - which I guard scrupulously - trying to discuss with you as you continue to lie time and again.

So if you insist on being known as a hypocrite, and worse - a direct, unabashed liar - more power to you.

For you have no excuse for that description being any sort of mistake, or accident. Not any more.

(I also would presume this means the end of rants about the "Repo lying", were you not as blatant a hypocrite as a liar.)

Addison

PS - My very sincere apologies to the rest of the people here, especially those who, despite disagreeing with me, do the honor and favor of discussing with me. I've attemped to keep the vitrol down, and merely state what had happened here in the name of civility, and if I failed, again, my apologies.

- one which I see you apparently defending, in each reply - as if I imagined that *You* personally ARE that mindset. I have treated your assertions as being (your best understanding of) "what The Law states / does not state" currently. I am arguing with *the mindset* for which you appear to be an apologist:

A) The law is clear about cameras - they are allowed and more will be allowed (whether you or I like it).
B) Short of making new laws - any other actions are ~ despicable (my summary not your word).

I have noted your also stated 'reservations': as each new er flaw of present legalistic application, is mentioned by one or another. Obviously! you are not "happy" with The Law as it is often interpreted. Either.

Yet you rebut my comments re the Source of (at least our) Law, the means for gaining attention to unworkable ones, and the occasions where civil disobedience has been required in the past: as if those concepts are foreign to you / anathema to Murican behavior / irresponsible if not scurrilous, even to speak of.

I do not *need* to LIE about "what you might, would? will!~ do" re say, some next proliferation of surveillance equipment near-to home or far away. I have never pretended to know (since: I couldn't).

Your reductio of the emotional quality which lies behind every action (which anyone ever deems "important") is as insulting as the LIES you claim I am telling about YOU.

Can we get this straight? I have No Idea what you might do or not do re any aspect of this topic. I argue with your IDEAS, and your characterization of ~ "what the problem is" - and do not confuse those with YOU.

It is always and everywhere Devil's Advocacy IMhO unless and until a proponent says: "this is the way it is supposed to be". (Rush allegedly does that a lot, for ex.) THEN it may become 'personal' - the self-ID with the POV has been made.

Argue as passionately for a POV as you want. Expect ridicule of the POV by those who find it flawed. (They certainly will, if mine is flawed) If it really is your POV - the ridicule is *STILL* about the POV.

Personally, I consider any discussion of 'surveillance' to go to the heart of "whatever 'personal freedom' might mean", anywhere at all. And I will oppose its ascent in Murica, as assiduously as I would have opposed nascent Nazism in Germany (and would likely be dead as consequence - if I hadn't fled the country in time.) If such a trend occurs here: I cannot ever claim ignorance of where it was leading. And choices will be ~same, I expect: fled or dead.

I doubt you are 'for increased surveillance', either; just a guess. I know what I will tolerate - not what you will. Nor do I presume that I know that.

If this is not clear enough.. then ditto:

What can I say?

A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!