From: Lookout on
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:47:55 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.
>
So you can't answer.
>>>"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.

And again.
>
>>>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.

Nope. Wrong again.
>
>>>>> 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'.
>
I think you're getting a little frustrated. How about a time out?
Good..I'm glad we both agree.
When you come back try to answer the questions.
From: Oglethorpe on

"Brian Wraith" <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvvlnt$q0g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 6/23/2010 10:34 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:11:47 -0700, Brian Wraith
>> <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/22/2010 12:04 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:35:01 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>>>>>> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-06-22, Lookout<mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been a favor of a national ID card for 30 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> numbered. My life is my own."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already are. You have a SSN and a drivers license. The
>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>> knows everything about you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you support making it worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's your opinion that it would get worse.
>>>>
>>>> Name a police state where your papers were checked routinely to make
>>>> sure you were permitted to be in that country, work there, etc is one
>>>> you would like to live in.
>>>>
>>>>>> Seems you missed the reference, it's from "The Prisoner". Why do you
>>>>>> wish to increase the imprisonment?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's your opinion. I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> How turning the USA into a full blown 'paper's please' police state not
>>>> make things worse?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Name a single western country, where if you are stopped for suspicion of
>>> being involved in a crime, you are not asked to positively identify
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Virtually all Police cruisers already carry computers and are tied into
> law enforcement databases.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>

Stalin used national ID cards to isolate and starve to death 25 million
people. He did this in the 1930s to get rid of some people he hated - like
Saddam with the Kurds - while presenting himself to the west as a hero
because Russia had weat to export - the food the starvipng people were
denied. This is one reason why national ID cards are a bad idea.


From: Brent on
On 2010-06-25, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> When you come back try to answer the questions.

You and the rest of the idiots have asked any. You couldn't even
formulate a question. Why don't you leave and go live in a police state
like north korea where they check IDs instead of screwing up what
freedom you haven't already destroyed here?


From: Brent on
On 2010-06-25, Oglethorpe <antikerry(a)go.com> wrote:
>
> "Brian Wraith" <brianwraith(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote in message

>> Virtually all Police cruisers already carry computers and are tied into
>> law enforcement databases.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

> Stalin used national ID cards to isolate and starve to death 25 million
> people. He did this in the 1930s to get rid of some people he hated - like
> Saddam with the Kurds - while presenting himself to the west as a hero
> because Russia had weat to export - the food the starvipng people were
> denied. This is one reason why national ID cards are a bad idea.

To the american useful idiot Stalin and the rest of mass murderers in
governments throughout history were just the wrong people using the
power. They believe that so long as the correct people have this
enormous power everything will be 'better'. The problem is they have no
way of keeping the wrong people from getting the power. They have no way
of determining who is a wrong person as well. They just have faith that
the power will be used wisely or only on 'bad people' they don't approve
of anyway. That's how it works time and time again.

Maybe the first person with it isn't so bad... but the second or third
ends up killing millions. That's just how it works because these sort of
people are attracted to power like bugs to a light. The only way to
prevent them from having it is to never allow government to be so
powerful in the first place. So when one of these pyschopaths gets into
a position of power there isn't much damage he can do.




From: Lookout on
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2010-06-25, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When you come back try to answer the questions.
>
>You and the rest of the idiots have asked any. You couldn't even
>formulate a question. Why don't you leave and go live in a police state
>like north korea where they check IDs instead of screwing up what
>freedom you haven't already destroyed here?
>
This isn't North Korea, dumbass.