... that comes out of the back of even new diesel vehicles on hard acceleration tells you all you need to know about how clean diesel really is. Yes, it emits less CO2 per mile than petrol/gasoline for the equivalent power output but thats where its enviromental credentials end.
haven't seen that out of diesels made in quite a while now. even diesel pickup trucks. more a function of 18 wheeler type trucks, but I can't tell how old one of the is.
There is that but the mention of treason and marines reacting to it ticked all the boxes to let former candidate and "patriot" Oliver North out of the box to show people what treason really looks like.
Oliver North was a magnetic personality, but magnetic north is not true north.
Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?
Not a bad idea.
A phone app to upload pics/video with location/time data taken of government officials/employees and other state actors wherever/whenever encountered by average people to a database hosted in multiple locations somewhere out of the US government's reach (short of military action, of course) like Ecuador and others, with facial recognition and other sophisticated search/filter algorithms in place.
Turn the machinery of the panopticon back on them.
They shouldn't worry, though. It's only 'metadata' which is meaningless, right?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Weird because the Marines forgave Oliver North for selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they blew up over a hundred Marines.
Or did they? All quiet but did they really forgive that bit of outright treason with a bunch that had deliberately targeted Marines?
Funny how saying something is treason but giving money and guns to declared enemies of the USA is patriotic enough to lead to photoshoots wrapped in a flag while running for office. It's hard to pin this treason thing down isn't it? It's starting to look like crimes against a King instead of against a country that should not have a King.
when somebody says veterans of some force will never forget so and so's treason, they mean "rightwingers have established a phony grassroots group to oppose so and so's political activity"
YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.
Since he knows about the treason of Jane Fonda, he most likely didn't sit at home. Most likely he's a former Marine. The Marines will never forgive Jane Fonda.
perfectly happy with those who lied them into harm's way, though.
Well, the classic " Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983."
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.
We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.
None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.
Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.
remember, though, making americans live in fear not only helps the terrorists, it helps those who sell anti-terrorist snake oil. one of our growth industries.
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
if you're a suspect in a crime in general, your mobility is extensively restrained. "don't leave town!" "OK sheriff"
Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:
To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.
One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.
Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.
It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.
from the linked article:
"None of the phony registrations led to illegal voting.
“This is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this,” state Secretary of State Sam Reed said"
there is a difference between voter fraud where an ineligible person actually gets a vote, and where somebody just puts "I. P. Freely" on the voter rolls without an ineligible voter waiting to use it.
also, from the article it doesn't sound so much as the perps were stoners as they were homeless people and folks with violent criminal histories... i'd prefer stoners.
I want them to be in 50 different databases please. Ideally with no electronic linking so that if the authorities of one state need info they need to convince the authorities of another state that it is necessary and proper AND create a paper trail. And I don't care to pay extra since we've done just fine with what we have now.
Meanwhile, those extra checks will make un-people. That is, people who don't happen to have any bills addressed to them at their current address and who don't have their SS card (perhaps due to a fire).
There are plenty of unpeople already, I've met adults, born in the US from parents born in the US, who were getting their first job where the boss was actually going to withhold taxes, pay SS and Medicare, etc. (and had never had a doctor visit in their life), and these folks had no idea of what a SS number was and how you would go about getting one.
Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.
Yes, there would be many benefits, but they are generally argued against by both liberals and conservatives because "identification papers" were historically the marker of totalitarian regimes.
And, indeed, there is a strong argument that they still could be problematic in exactly that way. Note what has happened in the past 15 years or so in the response to 9/11, and the various rights that have been undermined particularly in air travel. Note the massive government spying efforts which completely skirt the traditional interpretation of the 4th amendment. Etc., etc.
Now -- imagine that everyone was required to have a federally-issued ID card for identification purposes. Then imagine there's a terrorist incident on highways. Suddenly, the TSA can set up roadblocks in the middle of the U.S. and start doing what it does at airports -- except now at regional "checkpoints"... just to make sure you're not on the "do not drive list."
That's just one possible scenario. Without a national ID, it makes it that much harder for the feds to arbitrarily take the next steps toward totalitarian actions, further invasions of privacy and blanket searching, etc. And that's one reason why many states have deliberately passed laws to delay or frustrate the national "Real ID" initiative -- they realize where this consolidation of data on individuals can easily go.
A few decades ago, I probably wouldn't have objected too much to the idea. I agree with you about the potential benefits. But after we've seen what the federal government is willing to do in the past couple decades, no way. We'll probably get there eventually anyway within a few decades -- privacy is effectively dead. But I hope we don't help it along by shooting it, buying the casket, and serving as the pallbearer to its grave.
as a conservative i say the traditional manner of identifying citizens works well enough that we should not change it. i.e., if you look Mexican and have a Spanish name, you're suspicious. Although now we can include Middle Eastern too.
It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed. If the government knew who's a citizen or not and a nationally recognized ID was in place it would make voter fraud a lot harder. And if the US don't have a clue about who's a citizen or not, then the security measures likenthe 'do not fly' list is useless. All those actions at immigration like fingerprint reading is useless. It only serves to annoy people and makes the US look like a police state.
that's been an issue of debate for a long time now, although all the noise goes to the second amendment. but it's at least equally true that every citizen's right to vote shall not be abridged, and that requiring identification to do so intrinsically does involve some abridgement; those who haven't the time or ability to travel to a site where it can be done, never mind paying for whatever will be charged, are under a disadvantage. the onus is apparently on the government to ensure ineligible voters are prevented without interfering with eligible voters, much as second amendment types believe the onus is on the government to prevent criminals etc. from acquiring armaments without interfering with those eligible to own firearms. ironic that those who believe in one of these principles tend to be opposed to the other and vice versa.
It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.
In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.
The precedent being the Great Depression, when you were allowed to travel as long as 1) it wasn't by boxcar and/or you weren't caught and 2) you didn't actually stop traveling anywhere, just kept moving.
Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.
The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.
just my guess, but the availability of TSA prescreening programs would probably be viewed by the court as making the question of using state IDs moot. Just a hunch from what I've seen to previous court rulings.
Here's a fun fact:
Anyone who knows anything about datacenters knew what they would be collecting when they built the Utah datacenter. its building wasn't a secret.
You want to know who else has datacenters that size? Facebook and Google.
What the fuck did you think the NSA was going to do with a datacenter in Utah that rivaled a Facebook datacenter?
https://defensesystems.com/Art...
This shit was common knowledge. Here's an article about it a full 2.5 years before Mr. Idiot leaked information.
like a decade ago, i heard a radio program discussing how cell phone providers were providing metadata to the government, and how for some it was a substantial profit maker. And that was on NPR, ironically for all the rightwingers in the group.
We already have national identification cards - they are called passports.
Except, that, you know, passports are optional. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. If you never want to leave the US, you don't have to get one. I know plenty of people who never have. And in what way are passports even a bad idea? All countries have an interest in knowing who is coming into their own country, and if they have permission to be there (or should be denied such). You strike me as the sort of person who probably doesn't want Syrian immigrants coming into the US - without passports, how would you know that, and if the immigrant in question is a risk to US security? Other countries have the same rights regarding US citizens traveling to their countries.
I'm actually surprised that you didn't cite what is actually far closer to a "national ID" - your Social Security card. But as long as you don't plan on participating in the US economy in such a way that you involves taxable transactions, you technically don't need one of those either. Get born, grow up and live on a farm where you are self-sufficient and don't make monetary transactions which are subject to Federal taxation, and you can skip that too. Good luck with that, but there are plenty of US citizens in Alaska, Idaho and elsewhere (not to mention millions of illegal immigrants) who do just fine without SSNs.
What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.
Oh, FFS. That's like saying that because the vast majority of US residents have cellphones, that brings us closer to all having SIM cards implanted at birth. Your tinfoil hat is probably uncomfortable; you may wish to take it off from time to time for the benefit of your hair follicles. Unless you plan to blame your hair loss on "chemtrails."
if this keeps up, newborn babies will be required have some sort of individual identifier on their body, like a set of individually differentiated ridges on the skin of their fingertips, or a unique pattern of blood vessels on their retinas, or a unique sequence of base pairs in their DNA or something.
Passports are rather expensive and can take months to get. I don't have much of an objection to using my passport to travel, but they need to be issued for a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. I hide my passport until I need to go international because the darn thing cost almost $200 in total to get and took a month with the expediting charges.
well that leads to rightwing logic: the government is slow and inefficient, therefore we must cut their funding and staffing to improve it.
The photo, height, weight, and eye color are there to make it harder to get away with fraudulently driving on someone else's "simple certificate".
if "they" were serious about requiring a drivers license, "they" would have a slot on the dash where you would insert the license and either require it for the vehicle to move, or else have a display on the exterior of the car which affirmed that a valid license was present. ain't gonna happen.
Many of the means of travel involve transfer of funds to a corporate entity, often via some sort of credit, it's hard to imagine any system which would demand that such must be allowed to be done anonymously.
Driving a personal vehicle involves taxes and fees which enable things like roads which are required to make your travel by personal vehicle possible, and identification of those who have paid said taxes and fees would seem to be required as part of the system.
getting a ride, your self-identification is entirely a matter for you and your ride source to determine. AFAIK, there is not a government rideshare/hitchhike ID requirement.
In any event, the rapidity of your travel is not a matter for constitutional rights. In 1776 you could walk from state to state, there was no constitutional right to ride a horse or wagon, let alone a car or airplane. The next step would be to complain that driving a car from new york to california is so onerous, that there should be a constitutional right to fly by airline anonymously.
Actually, very few cargo ships will take passengers.
Bu thanks for the misinformation, you retarded Canadian sack of shit.
As always, by their anonymous vituperation shalt thou know their reliability
"Cargo Ship Travel
Cargo Ship Cruise Convoy
Cargo ships often act as passenger ships and offer real travel alternatives under the banner of freighter cruises, however travel by cargo ship is often more expensive than you might expect, regularly costing about the same as a cruise ship! So you might wonder why you would want to travel on a cargo ship as a passenger in this way. There are several good reasons;
Cargo ships often cover less touristy parts of the world which are not serviced by cruise ships
Not only is it real travel but it's one of the greenest forms of travel as you form a very small part of the container ships total cargo
Cargo ships travel throughout the year unlike cruise ships which are influenced by passenger demand, this means that cruise ships often only sail in the high season (usually the summer)
When you are a passenger on a cargo ship you usually get to dine with the captain of the ship and his officers
The standard of passenger accommodation is generally very good with most cargo ship passenger cabins having their own toilet and shower (you don't have to sleep in a container!)
Cargo ships usually accommodated just 12 or fewer passengers (a doctor is required for more than this), so the cargo ship is not going to be over crowded with other passengers
There are quite a few websites out there which specifically focus on alternative travel by cargo ship, we have listed all the sites that we are aware of. To save you time trawling through all the websites below, email us at cargoship@flightlesstravel.com and we will forward your query to select agents who can help you book your freighter trip, if the route you want to do is possible.
Although the sites below offer some very useful information we would also recommend phoning the harbour master for your preferred passenger departure point. They will often provide you with local contacts and up to date and local information.
Useful Websites
US agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: freightercruises.com & travltips.com
UK agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: Cargo Ship Voyages, Strand Travel, The Cruise People Ltd, Pathfinder & Sea Travel Ltd
Other agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: cross-ocean.com, freightertravel.co.nz/ & cargoshipcruises.nl
CMA CGM is a French cargo transportation and shipping company and is the third largest cargo shipping company in the world. - www.cma-cgm.com, you can book direct or via several of the agents listed above
German freighters, Hamburh SED, have a useful website that details numerous routes and prices for cargo ship travel around the globe. - www.hamburgsued-frachtschiffreisen.de
Italian freighter company, Grimaldi Line - covers routes to and from Europe to South America and Africa. www.grimaldi.co.uk/, Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) and Cruise Cyprus (www.cruisecyprus.com) act as agents for Grimaldi Line
German freighter company, Rickmers-Linie with cargo ship travel routes around the world. - www.rickmers-linie.de
Another German freighter company, Deutsche Afrika Linien (DAL) (www.dal.biz/) have a cargo ship (Kalahari) that sails between Bremerhaven and Cape Town, again Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) act as agents
Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), global cargo transportation company centred in Singapore. - www.nol.com.sg
FAQ's & general information on passenger travel by cargo ship: Gonomad.com, Seaplus.com, A la Carte Freighter Travel & Freightertrips.com"
http://www.flightlesstravel.co...
The frog boiling thing is a myth. If you put frogs in cold water and heat the water, when it gets sufficiently hot they jump out.
It's been tested, and it's been known to be false for at least 150 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Find another metaphor.
The trick is, you have to get them to vote for the boiling water.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.
Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writings of the Founders from that time and similar passages in state constitutions, as well as the legislative history and debates among the Founders for the 2nd amendment, it seems pretty clear that they were authorizing a broad power for "the people" to "keep and bear arms." The "well-regulated militia" stuff is just ONE reason why it's important to maintain that right... one reason important enough that they felt the need to mention it (even if they didn't mention others).
Or, to use my standard example, suppose you had a text that said:
A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Does that mean the federal government only has to allow registered voters to have books? Or might it just be saying, "the people have a broad right to own books, and here's one good reason -- though perhaps not the only reason -- why."
I can't say for certain what the 2nd amendment meant, but I think in historical context it makes more sense to read it as a broad-based right, with the Militia stuff as a prefatory clause, and it's perfectly rational to do so (even if you disagree).
The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
I ABSOLUTELY agree! I think firearms should be much more regulated than they are, and I wholeheartedly endorse introducing mandatory safety, training, and licensing measures, as we already require for similarly dangerous things like cars and heavy equipment. Whether the federal government could mandate that without a Constitutional amendment is an open question, but I would support an amendment to make it possible.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
I don't forget it at all -- it's essential to the text and had an important impact, particularly in the early Republic (before a standing army existed for the federal government). I just think you're potentially reading it completely wrong.
More importantly, I'd rather live in a somewhat antiquated world that actually respects its Founding laws and works to change or clarify them as necessary, rather than one in which those laws can be arbitrarily rejected on a whim (as they basically have been for the past 75 years or so). The danger in allowing the Constitution to just mean whatever you want because it would allow the sort of changes or regulation you want is -- what happens when the feds want to break other laws you care about? I'm glad women have a "right" to an abortion, but I also think the Constitutional basis of the "right to privacy" is rather flimsy, and I think it's rather dangerous that such things depend on the whims of 9 people in black robes, rather than something more explicitly articulated. Any "right" that is found or modified through textual "interpretation" that disagrees with previous interpretation could always be reversed by judicial
Slashdot Mirror
... that comes out of the back of even new diesel vehicles on hard acceleration tells you all you need to know about how clean diesel really is. Yes, it emits less CO2 per mile than petrol/gasoline for the equivalent power output but thats where its enviromental credentials end.
haven't seen that out of diesels made in quite a while now. even diesel pickup trucks. more a function of 18 wheeler type trucks, but I can't tell how old one of the is.
There is that but the mention of treason and marines reacting to it ticked all the boxes to let former candidate and "patriot" Oliver North out of the box to show people what treason really looks like.
Oliver North was a magnetic personality, but magnetic north is not true north.
Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?
Not a bad idea.
A phone app to upload pics/video with location/time data taken of government officials/employees and other state actors wherever/whenever encountered by average people to a database hosted in multiple locations somewhere out of the US government's reach (short of military action, of course) like Ecuador and others, with facial recognition and other sophisticated search/filter algorithms in place.
Turn the machinery of the panopticon back on them.
They shouldn't worry, though. It's only 'metadata' which is meaningless, right?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Strat
i never metadata i didn't like,
Weird because the Marines forgave Oliver North for selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they blew up over a hundred Marines. Or did they? All quiet but did they really forgive that bit of outright treason with a bunch that had deliberately targeted Marines? Funny how saying something is treason but giving money and guns to declared enemies of the USA is patriotic enough to lead to photoshoots wrapped in a flag while running for office. It's hard to pin this treason thing down isn't it? It's starting to look like crimes against a King instead of against a country that should not have a King.
when somebody says veterans of some force will never forget so and so's treason, they mean "rightwingers have established a phony grassroots group to oppose so and so's political activity"
YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.
Since he knows about the treason of Jane Fonda, he most likely didn't sit at home. Most likely he's a former Marine. The Marines will never forgive Jane Fonda.
perfectly happy with those who lied them into harm's way, though.
Lets not forget:
Anwar Al-Awlaki - Al Qaeda Leader dining at the Pentagon months after 9/11...
Proof: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 http://www.infowars.com/al-qae...
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...
Well, the classic
" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983."
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.
We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.
None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.
Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.
remember, though, making americans live in fear not only helps the terrorists, it helps those who sell anti-terrorist snake oil. one of our growth industries.
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.' We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
if you're a suspect in a crime in general, your mobility is extensively restrained. "don't leave town!" "OK sheriff"
Religious reasons; some people's religions do not permit photographs.
and all the fuss in various countries over whether women of sects who keep their face covered can do various things.
Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:
It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.
from the linked article:
"None of the phony registrations led to illegal voting.
“This is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this,” state Secretary of State Sam Reed said"
there is a difference between voter fraud where an ineligible person actually gets a vote, and where somebody just puts "I. P. Freely" on the voter rolls without an ineligible voter waiting to use it.
also, from the article it doesn't sound so much as the perps were stoners as they were homeless people and folks with violent criminal histories... i'd prefer stoners.
I want them to be in 50 different databases please. Ideally with no electronic linking so that if the authorities of one state need info they need to convince the authorities of another state that it is necessary and proper AND create a paper trail. And I don't care to pay extra since we've done just fine with what we have now.
Meanwhile, those extra checks will make un-people. That is, people who don't happen to have any bills addressed to them at their current address and who don't have their SS card (perhaps due to a fire).
There are plenty of unpeople already, I've met adults, born in the US from parents born in the US, who were getting their first job where the boss was actually going to withhold taxes, pay SS and Medicare, etc. (and had never had a doctor visit in their life), and these folks had no idea of what a SS number was and how you would go about getting one.
Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.
Yes, there would be many benefits, but they are generally argued against by both liberals and conservatives because "identification papers" were historically the marker of totalitarian regimes.
And, indeed, there is a strong argument that they still could be problematic in exactly that way. Note what has happened in the past 15 years or so in the response to 9/11, and the various rights that have been undermined particularly in air travel. Note the massive government spying efforts which completely skirt the traditional interpretation of the 4th amendment. Etc., etc.
Now -- imagine that everyone was required to have a federally-issued ID card for identification purposes. Then imagine there's a terrorist incident on highways. Suddenly, the TSA can set up roadblocks in the middle of the U.S. and start doing what it does at airports -- except now at regional "checkpoints"... just to make sure you're not on the "do not drive list."
That's just one possible scenario. Without a national ID, it makes it that much harder for the feds to arbitrarily take the next steps toward totalitarian actions, further invasions of privacy and blanket searching, etc. And that's one reason why many states have deliberately passed laws to delay or frustrate the national "Real ID" initiative -- they realize where this consolidation of data on individuals can easily go.
A few decades ago, I probably wouldn't have objected too much to the idea. I agree with you about the potential benefits. But after we've seen what the federal government is willing to do in the past couple decades, no way. We'll probably get there eventually anyway within a few decades -- privacy is effectively dead. But I hope we don't help it along by shooting it, buying the casket, and serving as the pallbearer to its grave.
as a conservative i say the traditional manner of identifying citizens works well enough that we should not change it. i.e., if you look Mexican and have a Spanish name, you're suspicious. Although now we can include Middle Eastern too.
And what's wrong with a nationally recognized ID?
It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed. If the government knew who's a citizen or not and a nationally recognized ID was in place it would make voter fraud a lot harder. And if the US don't have a clue about who's a citizen or not, then the security measures likenthe 'do not fly' list is useless. All those actions at immigration like fingerprint reading is useless. It only serves to annoy people and makes the US look like a police state.
that's been an issue of debate for a long time now, although all the noise goes to the second amendment. but it's at least equally true that every citizen's right to vote shall not be abridged, and that requiring identification to do so intrinsically does involve some abridgement; those who haven't the time or ability to travel to a site where it can be done, never mind paying for whatever will be charged, are under a disadvantage.
the onus is apparently on the government to ensure ineligible voters are prevented without interfering with eligible voters, much as second amendment types believe the onus is on the government to prevent criminals etc. from acquiring armaments without interfering with those eligible to own firearms.
ironic that those who believe in one of these principles tend to be opposed to the other and vice versa.
It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.
In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.
The precedent being the Great Depression, when you were allowed to travel as long as 1) it wasn't by boxcar and/or you weren't caught and 2) you didn't actually stop traveling anywhere, just kept moving.
Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.
The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.
just my guess, but the availability of TSA prescreening programs would probably be viewed by the court as making the question of using state IDs moot. Just a hunch from what I've seen to previous court rulings.
Here's a fun fact: Anyone who knows anything about datacenters knew what they would be collecting when they built the Utah datacenter. its building wasn't a secret. You want to know who else has datacenters that size? Facebook and Google. What the fuck did you think the NSA was going to do with a datacenter in Utah that rivaled a Facebook datacenter? https://defensesystems.com/Art... This shit was common knowledge. Here's an article about it a full 2.5 years before Mr. Idiot leaked information.
like a decade ago, i heard a radio program discussing how cell phone providers were providing metadata to the government, and how for some it was a substantial profit maker. And that was on NPR, ironically for all the rightwingers in the group.
We already have national identification cards - they are called passports.
Except, that, you know, passports are optional. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. If you never want to leave the US, you don't have to get one. I know plenty of people who never have. And in what way are passports even a bad idea? All countries have an interest in knowing who is coming into their own country, and if they have permission to be there (or should be denied such). You strike me as the sort of person who probably doesn't want Syrian immigrants coming into the US - without passports, how would you know that, and if the immigrant in question is a risk to US security? Other countries have the same rights regarding US citizens traveling to their countries.
I'm actually surprised that you didn't cite what is actually far closer to a "national ID" - your Social Security card. But as long as you don't plan on participating in the US economy in such a way that you involves taxable transactions, you technically don't need one of those either. Get born, grow up and live on a farm where you are self-sufficient and don't make monetary transactions which are subject to Federal taxation, and you can skip that too. Good luck with that, but there are plenty of US citizens in Alaska, Idaho and elsewhere (not to mention millions of illegal immigrants) who do just fine without SSNs.
What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.
Oh, FFS. That's like saying that because the vast majority of US residents have cellphones, that brings us closer to all having SIM cards implanted at birth. Your tinfoil hat is probably uncomfortable; you may wish to take it off from time to time for the benefit of your hair follicles. Unless you plan to blame your hair loss on "chemtrails."
if this keeps up, newborn babies will be required have some sort of individual identifier on their body, like a set of individually differentiated ridges on the skin of their fingertips, or a unique pattern of blood vessels on their retinas, or a unique sequence of base pairs in their DNA or something.
Passports are rather expensive and can take months to get. I don't have much of an objection to using my passport to travel, but they need to be issued for a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. I hide my passport until I need to go international because the darn thing cost almost $200 in total to get and took a month with the expediting charges.
well that leads to rightwing logic: the government is slow and inefficient, therefore we must cut their funding and staffing to improve it.
Welcome to Nazi Germany.
Dial it back to 11, Ms. Frank.
The photo, height, weight, and eye color are there to make it harder to get away with fraudulently driving on someone else's "simple certificate".
if "they" were serious about requiring a drivers license, "they" would have a slot on the dash where you would insert the license and either require it for the vehicle to move, or else have a display on the exterior of the car which affirmed that a valid license was present. ain't gonna happen.
Many of the means of travel involve transfer of funds to a corporate entity, often via some sort of credit, it's hard to imagine any system which would demand that such must be allowed to be done anonymously.
Driving a personal vehicle involves taxes and fees which enable things like roads which are required to make your travel by personal vehicle possible, and identification of those who have paid said taxes and fees would seem to be required as part of the system.
getting a ride, your self-identification is entirely a matter for you and your ride source to determine. AFAIK, there is not a government rideshare/hitchhike ID requirement.
In any event, the rapidity of your travel is not a matter for constitutional rights. In 1776 you could walk from state to state, there was no constitutional right to ride a horse or wagon, let alone a car or airplane. The next step would be to complain that driving a car from new york to california is so onerous, that there should be a constitutional right to fly by airline anonymously.
- Could try a cargo ship. They take passengers
Actually, very few cargo ships will take passengers.
Bu thanks for the misinformation, you retarded Canadian sack of shit.
As always, by their anonymous vituperation shalt thou know their reliability "Cargo Ship Travel Cargo Ship Cruise Convoy Cargo ships often act as passenger ships and offer real travel alternatives under the banner of freighter cruises, however travel by cargo ship is often more expensive than you might expect, regularly costing about the same as a cruise ship! So you might wonder why you would want to travel on a cargo ship as a passenger in this way. There are several good reasons; Cargo ships often cover less touristy parts of the world which are not serviced by cruise ships Not only is it real travel but it's one of the greenest forms of travel as you form a very small part of the container ships total cargo Cargo ships travel throughout the year unlike cruise ships which are influenced by passenger demand, this means that cruise ships often only sail in the high season (usually the summer) When you are a passenger on a cargo ship you usually get to dine with the captain of the ship and his officers The standard of passenger accommodation is generally very good with most cargo ship passenger cabins having their own toilet and shower (you don't have to sleep in a container!) Cargo ships usually accommodated just 12 or fewer passengers (a doctor is required for more than this), so the cargo ship is not going to be over crowded with other passengers There are quite a few websites out there which specifically focus on alternative travel by cargo ship, we have listed all the sites that we are aware of. To save you time trawling through all the websites below, email us at cargoship@flightlesstravel.com and we will forward your query to select agents who can help you book your freighter trip, if the route you want to do is possible. Although the sites below offer some very useful information we would also recommend phoning the harbour master for your preferred passenger departure point. They will often provide you with local contacts and up to date and local information. Useful Websites US agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: freightercruises.com & travltips.com UK agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: Cargo Ship Voyages, Strand Travel, The Cruise People Ltd, Pathfinder & Sea Travel Ltd Other agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: cross-ocean.com, freightertravel.co.nz/ & cargoshipcruises.nl CMA CGM is a French cargo transportation and shipping company and is the third largest cargo shipping company in the world. - www.cma-cgm.com, you can book direct or via several of the agents listed above German freighters, Hamburh SED, have a useful website that details numerous routes and prices for cargo ship travel around the globe. - www.hamburgsued-frachtschiffreisen.de Italian freighter company, Grimaldi Line - covers routes to and from Europe to South America and Africa. www.grimaldi.co.uk/, Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) and Cruise Cyprus (www.cruisecyprus.com) act as agents for Grimaldi Line German freighter company, Rickmers-Linie with cargo ship travel routes around the world. - www.rickmers-linie.de Another German freighter company, Deutsche Afrika Linien (DAL) (www.dal.biz/) have a cargo ship (Kalahari) that sails between Bremerhaven and Cape Town, again Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) act as agents Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), global cargo transportation company centred in Singapore. - www.nol.com.sg FAQ's & general information on passenger travel by cargo ship: Gonomad.com, Seaplus.com, A la Carte Freighter Travel & Freightertrips.com" http://www.flightlesstravel.co...
You are free to walk state to state, anonymously.
Is it convenient? Absolutely not. But it is also not restricted.
Not to hawaii. and to alaska only with the cooperation of the Canadian tyranny.
The frog boiling thing is a myth. If you put frogs in cold water and heat the water, when it gets sufficiently hot they jump out. It's been tested, and it's been known to be false for at least 150 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Find another metaphor.
The trick is, you have to get them to vote for the boiling water.
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.
Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writings of the Founders from that time and similar passages in state constitutions, as well as the legislative history and debates among the Founders for the 2nd amendment, it seems pretty clear that they were authorizing a broad power for "the people" to "keep and bear arms." The "well-regulated militia" stuff is just ONE reason why it's important to maintain that right... one reason important enough that they felt the need to mention it (even if they didn't mention others).
Or, to use my standard example, suppose you had a text that said:
A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Does that mean the federal government only has to allow registered voters to have books? Or might it just be saying, "the people have a broad right to own books, and here's one good reason -- though perhaps not the only reason -- why."
I can't say for certain what the 2nd amendment meant, but I think in historical context it makes more sense to read it as a broad-based right, with the Militia stuff as a prefatory clause, and it's perfectly rational to do so (even if you disagree).
The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
I ABSOLUTELY agree! I think firearms should be much more regulated than they are, and I wholeheartedly endorse introducing mandatory safety, training, and licensing measures, as we already require for similarly dangerous things like cars and heavy equipment. Whether the federal government could mandate that without a Constitutional amendment is an open question, but I would support an amendment to make it possible.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
I don't forget it at all -- it's essential to the text and had an important impact, particularly in the early Republic (before a standing army existed for the federal government). I just think you're potentially reading it completely wrong.
More importantly, I'd rather live in a somewhat antiquated world that actually respects its Founding laws and works to change or clarify them as necessary, rather than one in which those laws can be arbitrarily rejected on a whim (as they basically have been for the past 75 years or so). The danger in allowing the Constitution to just mean whatever you want because it would allow the sort of changes or regulation you want is -- what happens when the feds want to break other laws you care about? I'm glad women have a "right" to an abortion, but I also think the Constitutional basis of the "right to privacy" is rather flimsy, and I think it's rather dangerous that such things depend on the whims of 9 people in black robes, rather than something more explicitly articulated. Any "right" that is found or modified through textual "interpretation" that disagrees with previous interpretation could always be reversed by judicial