What Is Your Opinion On I.D. Cards?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: California Considers Electronic License Plate Ads
Next: Super-drunk Super-speeder gets 10 yrs for fatal crash
From: RD Sandman on 24 Jun 2010 12:36 Zombywoof <fishwings(a)live.com> wrote in news:52i5261f9731oa4i8gh64b6s2jm0fmr518(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:44:30 -0500, RD Sandman > <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote: > >>Zombywoof <fishwings(a)live.com> wrote in >>news:dk15265tqnkr10poeqbgoicl71r9li3g6k(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jun 22, 1:10Â pm, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The government >>>>> knows everything about you. >>>> >>>>Which shows that those in power want all prisoners numbered. The >>>>farmer numbers his cows, right? Just crimp a tag (or chip these days) >>>>in our ear at birth and track us throughout life. Just the ticket for >>>>a slave society. But then Lookout is a Democrat and has been for >>>>slavery for so many years. Only just don't use the WORD "slavery". >>>>Slavery is fine just so long as you don't call it that. Call it >>>>"national ID" or "Healthcare reform" or "public service jobs" or >>>>anything else, and it'll be just fine! >>>> >>> And, what is the difference between our government wanting you to have >>> a card with a number on it and the Germans Tattooing Numbers on ya? >> >>You can throw away the card. ;) >> > If you are a Weasel, you could chew off your arm! However, my last name isn't Harrison. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, must also have the smallest balls since they always have to have someone else do it for them.
From: RD Sandman on 24 Jun 2010 12:37 Zombywoof <fishwings(a)live.com> wrote in news:52i5261f9731oa4i8gh64b6s2jm0fmr518(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:44:30 -0500, RD Sandman > <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote: > >>Zombywoof <fishwings(a)live.com> wrote in >>news:dk15265tqnkr10poeqbgoicl71r9li3g6k(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jun 22, 1:10Â pm, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The government >>>>> knows everything about you. >>>> >>>>Which shows that those in power want all prisoners numbered. The >>>>farmer numbers his cows, right? Just crimp a tag (or chip these days) >>>>in our ear at birth and track us throughout life. Just the ticket for >>>>a slave society. But then Lookout is a Democrat and has been for >>>>slavery for so many years. Only just don't use the WORD "slavery". >>>>Slavery is fine just so long as you don't call it that. Call it >>>>"national ID" or "Healthcare reform" or "public service jobs" or >>>>anything else, and it'll be just fine! >>>> >>> And, what is the difference between our government wanting you to have >>> a card with a number on it and the Germans Tattooing Numbers on ya? >> >>You can throw away the card. ;) >> > If you are a Weasel, you could chew off your arm! I can remember when that was only under conditions of coyote ugly. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, must also have the smallest balls since they always have to have someone else do it for them.
From: RD Sandman on 24 Jun 2010 12:41 Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:9dk526tebuqrrlk6m061gjh4u10gjjaod4(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:12:38 -0400, Zombywoof <fishwings(a)live.com> > wrote: > >>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> >>wrote: >> >>>On Jun 22, 1:10�pm, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The government >>>> knows everything about you. >>> >>>Which shows that those in power want all prisoners numbered. The >>>farmer numbers his cows, right? Just crimp a tag (or chip these days) >>>in our ear at birth and track us throughout life. Just the ticket for >>>a slave society. But then Lookout is a Democrat and has been for >>>slavery for so many years. Only just don't use the WORD "slavery". >>>Slavery is fine just so long as you don't call it that. Call it >>>"national ID" or "Healthcare reform" or "public service jobs" or >>>anything else, and it'll be just fine! >>> >>And, what is the difference between our government wanting you to have >>a card with a number on it and the Germans Tattooing Numbers on ya? > > Stop being an idiot. This isn't 1940s Germany. > > There WILL be national ID cards. Bet on it. > There already are........Social Security cards and drivers licenses in those states that are up to date under the Real ID Act. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, must also have the smallest balls since they always have to have someone else do it for them.
From: Brent on 24 Jun 2010 14:33 On 2010-06-24, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >>> you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >>> suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. >> >>Foolishness. Also proof the slippery slope. You've accepted the other >>intrusions so you accept further incremental intrusions. Then one day >>you'll look around and wonder how you ended up starving in country that >>best resembles North Korea or waiting in a bread line in a country that >>best resembles the USSR. > > AHHAHHAH The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Do you have a counter point to make? Apparently not. >>It is absurd to think that the criminal types that are most often >>attracted to government will restrain themselves with such power. There >>is no evidence to think they will. Furthermore even the non-criminal >>types in government are with rare exception self-interested. That is >>they will do what is in their best interest, not your's, not mine, not >>anyone else's. >> >>> If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >>> detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >>> different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >>> conditions pertaining to detention. >> >>You haven't been paying attention. Under various anti-terror laws and >>pending legislation the government can grab a US citizen and send him >>overseas to be tortured and so forth. > > Just what bush did on several occasions. Yes, Shrub and Barry do the same things. It's the bush 3rd term. >>The difference between what is >>already 'law' and what is in the new legislation is simply a matter of >>degree and the work the government has to do. The pending stuff comes >>right out of those third world countries the USA was supposed to be >>better than. Of course all of it is a clear violation of rights.
From: Brent on 24 Jun 2010 14:39
On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > On 6/24/2010 6:52 AM, Brent wrote: >> On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith<brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Personally, I do not see this as being any more invasive, especially if >>> you are lawfully detained by an officer based upon "reasonable >>> suspicion" as upheld by the SCOTUS. >> >> Foolishness. Also proof the slippery slope. You've accepted the other >> intrusions so you accept further incremental intrusions. Then one day >> you'll look around and wonder how you ended up starving in country that >> best resembles North Korea or waiting in a bread line in a country that >> best resembles the USSR. > > At best this statement ignores the realities of the modern world, at > worst it is pure hyperbole, Yes, the state will always convince you that "the realities of the modern world" demand they take more power. That excuse has been used for thousands of years. It is no more valid today than it was when the Romans were feeding christians to the lions. You can call it what you want but the way you accept greater control from the state because of what has been accepted previously is the very definition of the slippery slope. >> It is absurd to think that the criminal types that are most often >> attracted to government will restrain themselves with such power. There >> is no evidence to think they will. Furthermore even the non-criminal >> types in government are with rare exception self-interested. That is >> they will do what is in their best interest, not your's, not mine, not >> anyone else's. >> >>> If your issue is with the conditions under which you can be lawfully >>> detained and then positively identified, than this would be a completely >>> different debate. However, I have not seen ANY changes in the USA to the >>> conditions pertaining to detention. >> >> You haven't been paying attention. Under various anti-terror laws and >> pending legislation the government can grab a US citizen and send him >> overseas to be tortured and so forth. The difference between what is >> already 'law' and what is in the new legislation is simply a matter of >> degree and the work the government has to do. The pending stuff comes >> right out of those third world countries the USA was supposed to be >> better than. Of course all of it is a clear violation of rights. > Please provide a specific citation to the clause in any US bill which > allows for "grabbing" a US Citizen and sending him overseas (unless you > are talking about the draft which of course ended with the Vietnam war). I've posted the names of the acts previously, I'm not going to look it up again. I believe the worst stuff was in the John Warner defense authorization act of a couple years ago. The most recent legislation put forth is discussed here: http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/sen-joe-liebermans-citizenship-stripping-bill-raises-questions/19467447 If you add that to existing law, someone 'involved with terrorists' is just about anyone the government decides based on whim. Of course with arrest being secret there's no need for the government to prove it anyway. |