What Is Your Opinion On I.D. Cards?
in [Drive]
|
From: Brian Wraith on 24 Jun 2010 15:08 On 6/24/2010 11:39 AM, Brent wrote: > 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. Christians simply suck, that was more than enough reason in my opinion. However, I do feel sorry for the Lions, having to eat such unsavory game. > > 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. Balh, blah, blah...... the sky is falling, OK, I get it. > >>> 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 Oh yeah, that was was just horrible......... > > 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. Right, they lock them away in the basement of area 51....... Aren't those tin foil hats uncomfortable?
From: Brent on 24 Jun 2010 16:18 On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > Balh, blah, blah...... the sky is falling, OK, I get it. Clearly you have no argument to present. "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken >> http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/sen-joe-liebermans-citizenship-stripping-bill-raises-questions/19467447 > Oh yeah, that was was just horrible......... Yeah, you love security. Just wait until someone has power that doesn't like your views. >> 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. > Right, they lock them away in the basement of area 51....... Aren't > those tin foil hats uncomfortable? Again, you have no argument to present. Keep worshipping the state. Here's a version you might understand: http://mises.org/books/trts/
From: Lookout on 24 Jun 2010 22:27 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > >> Balh, blah, blah...... the sky is falling, OK, I get it. > >Clearly you have no argument to present. And what have you shown? 1943 Germany? > >"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most >daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to >tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken Ok..now you're into science fiction. > >>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/sen-joe-liebermans-citizenship-stripping-bill-raises-questions/19467447 > >> Oh yeah, that was was just horrible......... > >Yeah, you love security. Just wait until someone has power that doesn't >like your views. You mean like the last 8 years? > >>> 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. > >> Right, they lock them away in the basement of area 51....... Aren't >> those tin foil hats uncomfortable? > >Again, you have no argument to present. Keep worshipping the state. >Here's a version you might understand: http://mises.org/books/trts/ > HAHAHAHAHAH Way, way out there in La La land.
From: Ray Fischer on 24 Jun 2010 22:47 Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > Ashton Crusher wrote: >> there is a huge difference between the typical requirements to >> "identify yourself" and the current proposals that would require >> biometric ID cards tied to a national database. In the typical >> situation of needing to identify yourself you only need to verbally >> provide your real name. If you are driving and don't have your >> license with you then you might get a ticket for not having it with >> you (if you have one) or for not having a license (if you don't have >> one) when they run your name thru the system. Absent your name being >> in the database of warrants they are not going to arrest you because >> you don't have any "papers" on you. > >There currently exist portable retina and finger print scanning devices >which can be carried in any police cruiser and tied into the national >identification database. If you don't have your ID, the police can scan >your thumbprint or your retina, right then and there and verify your >identity. Once again the rightard is shown to be a big-government fascist. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Brent on 24 Jun 2010 22:47
On 2010-06-25, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On 2010-06-24, Brian Wraith <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Balh, blah, blah...... the sky is falling, OK, I get it. >> >>Clearly you have no argument to present. > > And what have you shown? 1943 Germany? Yet another demonstration of your stupidity. >>"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most >>daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to >>tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken > > Ok..now you're into science fiction. And another. >>Yeah, you love security. Just wait until someone has power that doesn't >>like your views. > > You mean like the last 8 years? Oh I get it... you're one of those unique forms of idiot that the USA produces. The kind that objects to something when the other political team does it but it is perfectly ok when the team he likes does it. >>>> 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. >>> Right, they lock them away in the basement of area 51....... Aren't >>> those tin foil hats uncomfortable? >> >>Again, you have no argument to present. Keep worshipping the state. >>Here's a version you might understand: http://mises.org/books/trts/ >> > HAHAHAHAHAH > Way, way out there in La La land. good thing I typed 'might'. |