it's a whole lot easier to throw someone out of the country if they can't prove citizenship
I am a citizen in the US why should I have to prove I am? If anyone should prove anything the government should have to prove I am not a citizen, or legal resident. It's called innocence 'til proven guilty. And if you want to talk about legel immigration, I have one question or you. What Native American Indian Tribe are you a member of? If you aren't an NDN you are here illegally seeing as how no tribes issued any papers.
There are only two reasons I can imagine why the Democrats want to simultaneously prohibit Federal ID while destroying State ID integrity:
I thought the governor of New York Elliot Spitzer, you know the one who wants to give illegals drivers licenses, was a Republican.
As for so called illegal immigrants, I want to get rid of them all. Not by rounding them up and shipping them home but by getting rid of many laws restricting immigration. Throughout the USA's history there have been some who were afraid of the "Other" and wanted to prevent them from immigrating to the US, and what's going on now is more of the same. The first case I've heard of was Benjamin Franklin, which disappoints me. He wanted to stop Germans from immigrating. Others wanted to stop southern Europeans while others wanted eastern Europeans stopped. In the 1850s it was the Know Nothings who wanted to stop immigrants, this tyme Irish catholics. In the 1880 it was the Chinese who would be stopped, with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Now it's Mexicans and other Central Americans, who's ancestors the Mayans and other Native American Indians are native to the Americas, who are being excluded.
For me, he is more like the Federal "Reset Button", which I think this government could use (and is overdue for).
I wish someone would come along and reset the federal government, and I think of those running so far Ron Paul is the only one that will do it. I'd like to see him take a bunch of red pens into office with him. These he could use to veto a lot of bills that crosses his desk. Have a copy of the USA Constitution on his desk and a large poster of it on an Oval Office wall. Then when a bill is placed on the desk, with cameras rolling, look at the constitution and if an agency getting money isn't specified in the Constitution a red pen is taken out and "VETO" is written in bold letters across it. He then explains why, because the Constitution says nothing it's unconstitutional. Then if they want to try it let congress try to override the veto. If the bill restricts a right the same thing is done.
If it turns out I have to pick as usual between a democratic statist and a republican statist in the final election, I will take the liberal statism in a heartbeat;
This is what I did in 2000. During the campaign I supported Harry Browne, and as weird as it may seem Ralph Nader. However when it came to election day I felt bad about selecting Gross, er Gore. The vote looked too close and I thought Gore wasn't as bad as Bush. I wasn't about to do the same in 2004 so I supported Michael Badnarik all the way through, but unfortunately because I had moved and didn't get to change my registration in tyme I wasn't able to vote for him. Though I'm registered "No Party Affiliation", NPA, if I have to I will change the party affiliation to Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary nest year. Then change it right back to NPA. If he doesn't win the primaries more than likely I'll vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is.
Ron Paul right now is the only Republican I would vote for, and Clinton is the only Democrat I would not vote for, in a pinch. Things are that bad.
I know of no other Republican I could in good consciousness vote for. Like you I don't want President Hillary. But I don't really know what positions the other Democrat candidates have so I can't say I'd vote for one, if I had to vote for one. If I can't vote for Ron Paul I think I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate.
The religious definition of marriage originally meant a man and his "unions" with one or more women. By your logic our laws should allow a man to marry as many women as he wants, but not for a woman to marry as many men as she wants. How enlightened.
It depends on what religion you're talking about. Some religions allowed homosexual unions and some allowed Polygamy, which despite what the mass media says allows both male and females to have more than one spouse when they say "polygamy". What those who say more than one wife for the husband, like some Mormons, mean the correct word is Polygyny. Others allowed Polyandry or a female having more than one husband. Myself I prefer Polyamory, more than one love.
Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs,
Gosh of the dozens of tymes I read the USA Constitution, I never ever read in it how states must recognize other states' IDs. I don't even recall seeing anything in it about IDs. Can you please tell me where it at?
I don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?
The Real ID DOES NOT combine DL, passports, and social security cards all into one card. If a person wants to drive legally they will still need a DL. If the same person wants to travel to another country they will still need a passport. And if they work in the USA they will still need a social security card. Lastly if a citizen in the US wants to do all three they will still need all three cards.
And as for passports, whereas as a citizen in the US I was able to drive to Canada, or Mexico, without a passport before I could. And I did, I last went to Canada in August 2001. All that was needed was my drivers license. But if I were to go now I would need a passport.
I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.
You may want to live in NAZI Germany but I don't. And remember Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power. Heck it was even the elected government that handed Hitler the power. Neither do I want to live in the Soviet Union. If you want to you're free to move, just don't turn my country into anything of the sort. I was born and served in the armed forces of the Land of the Free, heck I was even born in a US Air Force hospital, and that's how I want it to remain.
I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.
Anyway, the excesses of the Bush administration are going to be cured by the next Republican President. Sure, the liberals whine about lost liberties, but (sadly) only the Republicans have the spine to actually step up and do something about it.
That eliminates any of the Republican candidates for 2008, doesn't it?
No, there's still one Republican that gets it, Ron Paul!
it took a Republican (John McCain) to call the President on the carpet over the whole torture thing.
Well having had accommodations at Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years John McCain is correctly the one to call Bush on the carpet for torture. Let someone with personal experience with torture be the one to talk about it.
Devil's advocate, if we had an actual national ID, it would be easier to notice of for example
someone was taking flight lessons in Nebraska
What does it matter to a state if a person takes flight lessons? The state has no reason to be involved.
buying a bunch of fertilizer in Iowa
Neither does a state need to know anything about anyone buying fertilizer.
and holds a rapidly accruing bank account in Missouri.
The only reason a state may need or want to know about a bank account is for income tax avoidance. Same with the federal government, however if the feds were to stop taxing workers earned income it wouldn't need to know either.
Because currently, any investigation of one of those events is going to more or less end at that state's database.
Good, I don't want, or need, the Gestapo or KGB building a dossier on me. People shouldn't fear their government, instead government should fear those they are supposed to serve! When government has no fear of it's citizens is when government becomes authoritarian. And government is the BIGGEST Terrorist organization many will face.
The only policy position that he radically deviates from the libertarian norm on is on immigration and naturalization, and I find that departure unfortunate.
Immigration and naturalization is the one area I disagree with him too. He still comes the closest to my positions on the issues that matter to me. If given the chance next year I'll vote for Ron Paul again, I first voted for him for President in 1988.
Huh... his only section on Life & Liberty is his desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In other words, for FORCE a woman to have a baby she doesn't want in her.
No Ron Paul doesn't want Roe V Wade overturned to make it law a woman has to carry a fetus 'til birth, the USA Constitution says nothing about it and since it doesn't the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or the people. What Ron Paul wants is for the states to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal in each state. While I'd rather abortion be legal nationally, keep it legal but reduce the need for it, I can't fault Paul's stance. Here's his votes on abortions. Specific votes were:
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
here he voted to allow minors to be transported across state lines.
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Self explanitory
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
To save a woman's life he would allow abortions.
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Same
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Here is the only vote against partial birth abortions, not all just so called partial birth, the one above (Oct 2003) allows them if the woman's life is in danger.
The page linked to above has more of his stances. Some of them some will like and others will hate. Both Democrats and Republicans, neo cons and neo liberals. Basically that what a Libertarian is, Libertarians stand between Democrats and Republicans, neo conservatives and neo liberals, ie liberty and small government.
Jose Padilla wasn't captured in Afghanistan, but he was arrested in Chicago, IL. Nor was he sent to Gitmo, but he was held incommunicado in the USA. As were others. Oh, I see you mention him. There's also Hamdi who though captured in Afghanistan is a US citizen. And the USSC ruled he could not be deprived of Habeas Corpus.
Credit Cards? Are you kidding? Unless I'm making a big ticket purchase, I am never asked to show an ID when using my credit card. My girlfriend even has "Ask For ID" written in the signature panel, and its rare that someone even checks.
Same here, I have "check id" on mine, however even when someone asks to see the cc, which isn't often, they quickly look at the back. What for I don't know, if they actually read it they'd do more than just hand it back. However at least VISA says someone can't be IDed, all someone accepting a VISA cc can do is compare the signature on the receipt with the one on the card. One VISA issuer says this"
Technically, merchants are not authorized to accept credit or debit cards that are not signed by the cardholder or have used the signature panel on the back of the card for something other than a signature such as "Ask for ID". ...
By signing the card, you provide a means for the merchant to verify your identity. Merchants must compare the signature on the back of the card with the signature on the receipt before completing the transaction.
They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas.
They can then require ID for those areas and have security request IDs to make sure anyone there is authorized. They don't need to know who a person is in public spaces. For instance they don't need to know who someone going to the game room is, I specifically mention this because my sister used to go the airport where we lived to play video games and occasionally she'd take me. If I wait in line at the ticket counter and buy a ticket going somewhere and pay cash they have no need to know who I am, all they need to know is where the ticket is to and if the person can pay for it. If paying with check or credit card then they need to know you are authorized to write a check or use the cc.
Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying.
Yea, the TSA needs to make sure Senator Kennedy doesn't fly, NOT! There is no need for any TSA. Nor is there a need for the government to know what a law abiding person goes. Simply government shouldn't be controlling who gets on a plane.
I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane!
You trust someone who won't let Kennedy or Cat Stevens fly? Boy are they dangerous terrorists. NOT!!! Neither is John Gilmore. If the US really wants to do something about terrorism then it needs to stop creating and supporting terrorists If bin Laden, al Quada, and the Taliban are terrorists then why did the Reagan and Bush Sr admins support them?
Flying is not a right.
Neither is feeling secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said anyone willing to give up a little liberty for security neither will neither get nor deserve either. If you want to live somewhere where you'll feel secure I'm sure Putin's Russia, Iran, or Cuba would love to have you. Just don't turn my country into one of these. I was born in the Land Of The Free but if you don't like it move, that is if you live in the US.
I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.
Yeap, to some like you, tyranny of the masses is more important than liberty. Please form your own perfect government somewhere else, say NAZI Germany.
Usually, you are required to show your DL at the same time.
Besides DLs states also issue IDs. The DLs authorize people to drive but if a person has one they don't need an ID. IDs are for those who need ID but don't drive. For a check or credit card it's an ID that is required not a driver's license. However that's not a government mandate, it's a financial mandate, the issuing entity of the cc or check wants the person to show they are who they say they are. No government involved, unless there's fraud or some such.
We already have RealID in practice.
No we don't. As it should be there is no nationwide database of all citizens controlled by the government!
What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard.
How is it a good this for those who love freedom? It's only good for those who want to control the population.
What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard.
Point to one place in the Constitution of the USA where it gives the federal governemnt this sort of power? Hint, it doesn't therefore the federal government has no such authority, and the 10th Amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the state or th4e people.
Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services,
Travel IS NOT a governmental, at least not federal government, service. Most air travel is between individuals or entities and other entities. And many of those entities are businesses.
If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?
Yes it is, other than a dictatorship or authoritarian regime why does the government need to track law abiding people?
your initial argument against nuclear was it involved mining, which you decried as evil and destructive to the earth.
I then stated coal and oil were both mined already using more invasive techniques, and further everything in modern society is majority composed of refined mined materials of some sort.
I did say uranium mining is destructive but I did not say everything that makes our society modern comes from mining, either ore or pretrochemicals . Only uranium not any other mining. However I als oppose coal mining which is destructive, especially mountain top removal.
Who's being hypocritical, someone stating facts or someone making things up?
i'd say the one deliberately lying by proclaiming he didn't say what he actually said
So again I ask where I said what is in bold above? Can you show me one place on this thread I said it?
If the government wanted to track you liquor store habits, they could just look at your Visa records. Besides, do you think that all liquor stores, grocery stores, and bars would be forced to purchase card readers and Internet access and scan every single patron that walked through their doors?
To prevent my purchasing to be tracked I pay with cash when I can, even just to pick up groceries or books and magazines. I stopped going to one liquor store, MGM, because even when I paid cash they still wanted to scan my ID. I don't mind it when writing a check or using a credit card. But when I went in and handed over cash and they refused to accept the sale without an ID I grabbed my money and walked out.
I think the idea was to make it easier for airport employees to prove your ID is real before letting you on the flight. That's impossible with 50 different ID systems.
Airport employees don't need to track me, they don't need to know anything. Now the airline employee that I get the ticket from needs to know I can pay for it as well as checkin baggage but that's it. If the airline wants to require IDs I have no problem with either as long as they keep it private and don't share it with the government. My problem is the government requiring ID. I was born in the Land Of The Free not the Soviet Union where you had to carry your internal passport and show it to whoever asked for it.
When I was in college I never had the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude. I had the "I want to drink so I'm going to" attitude.
When I was in the US Army I would buy a drink and still be drinking it a couple of hours later. A mixed drink with rum, tequila, or something else would last me that long and a bottle or can of beer could last me a few hours. I attribute this to my mother raising me to drink responsibly, growing up she would give me some wine, beer, or something else to sip while eating and such but she'd never give me too much.
agreed. i don't get it. they let you drive, smoke, vote, and go die for your country, but you can't have a beer for another 3(?) years?
drinking age here is 19, which makes more sense to me.
For those reasons in the first sentence I believe 18 should be the age a person can buy alcohol. However I also believe a parents should be able to buy and serve it to their children. Unfortunately in the US a parent doing so might be arrested and have their children taken away for child endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or some such.
What's a cop-out is saying nuclear power is needed when it isn't.
finally, everything that makes our society modern comes from mining, either ore or pretrochemicals
despite the demand of 6 billion people for all these mined goods the planet is still here and beautiful, and many more people are worried about logging than mining.
I went up the tread to see where I said the above in bold yet I don't see it. Is it something you're making up I said?
So in closing, if you are so opposed to mining as the bane of the planet, then you need to send everything you own which includes plastic or metal to the recycling plant and go live with the amish, or cut it with the hypocrisy.
Who's being hypocritical, someone stating facts or someone making things up? Plastics coming from mines? You are either ignorant or making things up. Though plastics are now made from petrochemicals this hasn't always being true. Prior to the mid 1930s, when DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petro, nylon then rayon later, plastics were made from plants such as trees. The cellulose in trees gave the name Cellophane, a plastic. Cellophane is what was used to wrap stuff like sandwiches, the saran wrap of yesteryear. Kodak the camera company had a process whereby they used plant cellulose to make the plastic for film. Hemp was also a source of cellulose, as well as other things. Henry Ford designed and built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate in the '30s that used hemp in the construction and was made into fuel for the vehicle. In the end I am not opposed to mining but seeing as how there is no need for nuclear power plants there's no need to mine uranium!
Well crap, after only 20-30 years of completely inhumane treatment, they would have been freed without intervention. Why didn't we just wait while peoples' lives were ruined systematically day by day.
It was better to end slavery as it ended instead of allowing it to continue, but it would be been better had slavery ended with the "Declaration of Independence". Thomas Jefferson the author of the DOI included in his first drafts of the DOI that all people including Blacks and Women had the same rights. However because slave owners and supporters had to sign it he was forced to change the DOI and get rid of this. I can hear it now, "But Thomas Jefferson owned slaves." Yes he owned slaves, slaves he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. TJ never bought any slave however he did free some slaves. He had planned on freeing all of the slaves however he wanted to pay off all of his debts first. Unfortunately he never did. Thinking about it, maybe he could have paid his debts off if he had freed his slaves.
Realize, also, that the damage and hate carried from slavery would have lasted generations after it was ended if it wasn't ended on principle, not personal gain.
Oh but damage and hatred are here today and if you pay attention to US news you'd know this. Maybe if slavery had ended because of economics people wouldn't have been so angry about being forced by law to end slavery. Even today there are a bunch of people who support state's rights. I am one. But not because of slavery, I don't believe anyone has the right to own anyone else nor can a state grant it.
The southern agricultural model was essentially low-technology work requiring a massive amount of labor.
Labor that had to be chained and guarded Slaves had to be housed and fed, then the slave watchers had to be as well. When one slave escaped or died another had to be bought and when one was injured and unable to work the labor went missing. Actually most southerners didn't own slaves because they were too expensive, most slaves were owned by large plantation owners. They could only afford slaves because of the large holdings. However when sons and daughters inherited plantations they were broken up thus loosing economy of scales.
Realize, also, that the damage and hate carried from slavery would have lasted generations after it was ended if it wasn't ended on principle, not personal gain.
This doesn't hold water. Even with slavery ended on principle, the Civil War wasn't really about slavery but about state rights, today almost 150 years later there's still damage and hatred. For instance all the stuff in the news about hang nooses. There are even racists on the air. And there are the skinheads and Neo Nazis. I knew someone, who though he was friendly with Blacks, still believed in slavery saying it was in the Bible. Of course as with many so called Christians, he missed the part where Jesus said he was teaching a new way and the Jews escaped from slavery, more than once, themselves. Actually if slavery had ended on economic grounds people would be more willing to accept the fact slavery was bad than being forced to end it.
It is important to end injustice because it is unjust, not because it is no longer profitable.
I agree but wanted to point out that economics would have eventually ended slavery. And as stated above the US Civil War was not about ending slavery but about states rights. The southern states seceded from the USA because they saw the federal government as violating states rights. Of those who seceded and formed the Confederate States of America 7 seceded before Abraham Lincoln was even elected.
If I need to I can tunnel into my own server and synchronize docs on the road.
Most people cannot. Either (in a corporate setting) IT decides it is not necessary, or (at home) they do not know how to do it, and they have a PC that is turned off when they are out rather than an always on server.
I don't know how to either but I know how to to use the net to find out how to setup a VPN. As for IT, if they are unwilling to allow it then they need to examine why and maybe change policies. I almost always have a computer, 2 even, running. That's the one area I use more power than I need to, everywhere else I try to reduce my energy usage.
Using a laptop as your primary PC does work, which is why they are becoming more practical.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro with a 200GB hdd and it's my primary computer. That's exactly why I want to setup a VPN with the PC at home, so I can access any files I don't have with me on the road. I used much more storage space than what will fit on my hdd, I installed a 750GB hdd in my PC at home I plan to use as a server and I've already used more than 250GB of the space. Early next year I hope to start working as a photographer and if so I may even need another hdd that's bigger. I only have a 35mm film SLR right now so it will take some tyme to use up 750GB, er 500GB. However if I am able to get some freelance jobs I plan on getting a DSLR and maybe a medium format camera, if so then I can quickly use up 500GB
Slashdot Mirror
it's a whole lot easier to throw someone out of the country if they can't prove citizenship
I am a citizen in the US why should I have to prove I am? If anyone should prove anything the government should have to prove I am not a citizen, or legal resident. It's called innocence 'til proven guilty. And if you want to talk about legel immigration, I have one question or you. What Native American Indian Tribe are you a member of? If you aren't an NDN you are here illegally seeing as how no tribes issued any papers.
FalconThere are only two reasons I can imagine why the Democrats want to simultaneously prohibit Federal ID while destroying State ID integrity:
I thought the governor of New York Elliot Spitzer, you know the one who wants to give illegals drivers licenses, was a Republican.
As for so called illegal immigrants, I want to get rid of them all. Not by rounding them up and shipping them home but by getting rid of many laws restricting immigration. Throughout the USA's history there have been some who were afraid of the "Other" and wanted to prevent them from immigrating to the US, and what's going on now is more of the same. The first case I've heard of was Benjamin Franklin, which disappoints me. He wanted to stop Germans from immigrating. Others wanted to stop southern Europeans while others wanted eastern Europeans stopped. In the 1850s it was the Know Nothings who wanted to stop immigrants, this tyme Irish catholics. In the 1880 it was the Chinese who would be stopped, with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Now it's Mexicans and other Central Americans, who's ancestors the Mayans and other Native American Indians are native to the Americas, who are being excluded.
FalconFor me, he is more like the Federal "Reset Button", which I think this government could use (and is overdue for).
I wish someone would come along and reset the federal government, and I think of those running so far Ron Paul is the only one that will do it. I'd like to see him take a bunch of red pens into office with him. These he could use to veto a lot of bills that crosses his desk. Have a copy of the USA Constitution on his desk and a large poster of it on an Oval Office wall. Then when a bill is placed on the desk, with cameras rolling, look at the constitution and if an agency getting money isn't specified in the Constitution a red pen is taken out and "VETO" is written in bold letters across it. He then explains why, because the Constitution says nothing it's unconstitutional. Then if they want to try it let congress try to override the veto. If the bill restricts a right the same thing is done.
If it turns out I have to pick as usual between a democratic statist and a republican statist in the final election, I will take the liberal statism in a heartbeat;
This is what I did in 2000. During the campaign I supported Harry Browne, and as weird as it may seem Ralph Nader. However when it came to election day I felt bad about selecting Gross, er Gore. The vote looked too close and I thought Gore wasn't as bad as Bush. I wasn't about to do the same in 2004 so I supported Michael Badnarik all the way through, but unfortunately because I had moved and didn't get to change my registration in tyme I wasn't able to vote for him. Though I'm registered "No Party Affiliation", NPA, if I have to I will change the party affiliation to Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary nest year. Then change it right back to NPA. If he doesn't win the primaries more than likely I'll vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is.
Ron Paul right now is the only Republican I would vote for, and Clinton is the only Democrat I would not vote for, in a pinch. Things are that bad.
I know of no other Republican I could in good consciousness vote for. Like you I don't want President Hillary. But I don't really know what positions the other Democrat candidates have so I can't say I'd vote for one, if I had to vote for one. If I can't vote for Ron Paul I think I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate.
FalconThe religious definition of marriage originally meant a man and his "unions" with one or more women. By your logic our laws should allow a man to marry as many women as he wants, but not for a woman to marry as many men as she wants. How enlightened.
It depends on what religion you're talking about. Some religions allowed homosexual unions and some allowed Polygamy, which despite what the mass media says allows both male and females to have more than one spouse when they say "polygamy". What those who say more than one wife for the husband, like some Mormons, mean the correct word is Polygyny. Others allowed Polyandry or a female having more than one husband. Myself I prefer Polyamory, more than one love.
FalconConstitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs,
Gosh of the dozens of tymes I read the USA Constitution, I never ever read in it how states must recognize other states' IDs. I don't even recall seeing anything in it about IDs. Can you please tell me where it at?
FalcopnI don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?
The Real ID DOES NOT combine DL, passports, and social security cards all into one card. If a person wants to drive legally they will still need a DL. If the same person wants to travel to another country they will still need a passport. And if they work in the USA they will still need a social security card. Lastly if a citizen in the US wants to do all three they will still need all three cards.
And as for passports, whereas as a citizen in the US I was able to drive to Canada, or Mexico, without a passport before I could. And I did, I last went to Canada in August 2001. All that was needed was my drivers license. But if I were to go now I would need a passport.
I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.
You may want to live in NAZI Germany but I don't. And remember Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power. Heck it was even the elected government that handed Hitler the power. Neither do I want to live in the Soviet Union. If you want to you're free to move, just don't turn my country into anything of the sort. I was born and served in the armed forces of the Land of the Free, heck I was even born in a US Air Force hospital, and that's how I want it to remain.
I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.
No, it's a step on a slippery slope.
FalconAnyway, the excesses of the Bush administration are going to be cured by the next Republican President. Sure, the liberals whine about lost liberties, but (sadly) only the Republicans have the spine to actually step up and do something about it.
That eliminates any of the Republican candidates for 2008, doesn't it?
No, there's still one Republican that gets it, Ron Paul!
Falconit took a Republican (John McCain) to call the President on the carpet over the whole torture thing.
Well having had accommodations at Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years John McCain is correctly the one to call Bush on the carpet for torture. Let someone with personal experience with torture be the one to talk about it.
FalconDevil's advocate, if we had an actual national ID, it would be easier to notice of for example
someone was taking flight lessons in Nebraska
What does it matter to a state if a person takes flight lessons? The state has no reason to be involved.
buying a bunch of fertilizer in Iowa
Neither does a state need to know anything about anyone buying fertilizer.
and holds a rapidly accruing bank account in Missouri.
The only reason a state may need or want to know about a bank account is for income tax avoidance. Same with the federal government, however if the feds were to stop taxing workers earned income it wouldn't need to know either.
Because currently, any investigation of one of those events is going to more or less end at that state's database.
Good, I don't want, or need, the Gestapo or KGB building a dossier on me. People shouldn't fear their government, instead government should fear those they are supposed to serve! When government has no fear of it's citizens is when government becomes authoritarian. And government is the BIGGEST Terrorist organization many will face.
FalconThe only policy position that he radically deviates from the libertarian norm on is on immigration and naturalization, and I find that departure unfortunate.
Immigration and naturalization is the one area I disagree with him too. He still comes the closest to my positions on the issues that matter to me. If given the chance next year I'll vote for Ron Paul again, I first voted for him for President in 1988.
FalconHuh... his only section on Life & Liberty is his desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In other words, for FORCE a woman to have a baby she doesn't want in her.
No Ron Paul doesn't want Roe V Wade overturned to make it law a woman has to carry a fetus 'til birth, the USA Constitution says nothing about it and since it doesn't the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or the people. What Ron Paul wants is for the states to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal in each state. While I'd rather abortion be legal nationally, keep it legal but reduce the need for it, I can't fault Paul's stance. Here's his votes on abortions. Specific votes were:
here he voted to allow minors to be transported across state lines.
Self explanitory
To save a woman's life he would allow abortions.
Same
Here is the only vote against partial birth abortions, not all just so called partial birth, the one above (Oct 2003) allows them if the woman's life is in danger.
The page linked to above has more of his stances. Some of them some will like and others will hate. Both Democrats and Republicans, neo cons and neo liberals. Basically that what a Libertarian is, Libertarians stand between Democrats and Republicans, neo conservatives and neo liberals, ie liberty and small government.
FalconHabeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period.
Jose Padilla wasn't captured in Afghanistan, but he was arrested in Chicago, IL. Nor was he sent to Gitmo, but he was held incommunicado in the USA. As were others. Oh, I see you mention him. There's also Hamdi who though captured in Afghanistan is a US citizen. And the USSC ruled he could not be deprived of Habeas Corpus.
FalconCredit Cards? Are you kidding? Unless I'm making a big ticket purchase, I am never asked to show an ID when using my credit card. My girlfriend even has "Ask For ID" written in the signature panel, and its rare that someone even checks.
Same here, I have "check id" on mine, however even when someone asks to see the cc, which isn't often, they quickly look at the back. What for I don't know, if they actually read it they'd do more than just hand it back. However at least VISA says someone can't be IDed, all someone accepting a VISA cc can do is compare the signature on the receipt with the one on the card. One VISA issuer says this"
Technically, merchants are not authorized to accept credit or debit cards that are not signed by the cardholder or have used the signature panel on the back of the card for something other than a signature such as "Ask for ID".
...
FalconBy signing the card, you provide a means for the merchant to verify your identity. Merchants must compare the signature on the back of the card with the signature on the receipt before completing the transaction.
They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas.
They can then require ID for those areas and have security request IDs to make sure anyone there is authorized. They don't need to know who a person is in public spaces. For instance they don't need to know who someone going to the game room is, I specifically mention this because my sister used to go the airport where we lived to play video games and occasionally she'd take me. If I wait in line at the ticket counter and buy a ticket going somewhere and pay cash they have no need to know who I am, all they need to know is where the ticket is to and if the person can pay for it. If paying with check or credit card then they need to know you are authorized to write a check or use the cc.
Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying.
Yea, the TSA needs to make sure Senator Kennedy doesn't fly, NOT! There is no need for any TSA. Nor is there a need for the government to know what a law abiding person goes. Simply government shouldn't be controlling who gets on a plane.
I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane!
You trust someone who won't let Kennedy or Cat Stevens fly? Boy are they dangerous terrorists. NOT!!! Neither is John Gilmore. If the US really wants to do something about terrorism then it needs to stop creating and supporting terrorists If bin Laden, al Quada, and the Taliban are terrorists then why did the Reagan and Bush Sr admins support them?
Flying is not a right.
Neither is feeling secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said anyone willing to give up a little liberty for security neither will neither get nor deserve either. If you want to live somewhere where you'll feel secure I'm sure Putin's Russia, Iran, or Cuba would love to have you. Just don't turn my country into one of these. I was born in the Land Of The Free but if you don't like it move, that is if you live in the US.
I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.
Yeap, to some like you, tyranny of the masses is more important than liberty. Please form your own perfect government somewhere else, say NAZI Germany.
FalconUsually, you are required to show your DL at the same time.
Besides DLs states also issue IDs. The DLs authorize people to drive but if a person has one they don't need an ID. IDs are for those who need ID but don't drive. For a check or credit card it's an ID that is required not a driver's license. However that's not a government mandate, it's a financial mandate, the issuing entity of the cc or check wants the person to show they are who they say they are. No government involved, unless there's fraud or some such.
We already have RealID in practice.
No we don't. As it should be there is no nationwide database of all citizens controlled by the government!
FalconWhat it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard.
How is it a good this for those who love freedom? It's only good for those who want to control the population.
What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard.
Point to one place in the Constitution of the USA where it gives the federal governemnt this sort of power? Hint, it doesn't therefore the federal government has no such authority, and the 10th Amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the state or th4e people.
Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services,
Travel IS NOT a governmental, at least not federal government, service. Most air travel is between individuals or entities and other entities. And many of those entities are businesses.
If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?
Yes it is, other than a dictatorship or authoritarian regime why does the government need to track law abiding people?
FaclonOk
Falconyour initial argument against nuclear was it involved mining, which you decried as evil and destructive to the earth.
I then stated coal and oil were both mined already using more invasive techniques, and further everything in modern society is majority composed of refined mined materials of some sort.
I did say uranium mining is destructive but I did not say everything that makes our society modern comes from mining, either ore or pretrochemicals . Only uranium not any other mining. However I als oppose coal mining which is destructive, especially mountain top removal.
Who's being hypocritical, someone stating facts or someone making things up?
i'd say the one deliberately lying by proclaiming he didn't say what he actually said
So again I ask where I said what is in bold above? Can you show me one place on this thread I said it?
FalconIf the government wanted to track you liquor store habits, they could just look at your Visa records. Besides, do you think that all liquor stores, grocery stores, and bars would be forced to purchase card readers and Internet access and scan every single patron that walked through their doors?
To prevent my purchasing to be tracked I pay with cash when I can, even just to pick up groceries or books and magazines. I stopped going to one liquor store, MGM, because even when I paid cash they still wanted to scan my ID. I don't mind it when writing a check or using a credit card. But when I went in and handed over cash and they refused to accept the sale without an ID I grabbed my money and walked out.
I think the idea was to make it easier for airport employees to prove your ID is real before letting you on the flight. That's impossible with 50 different ID systems.
Airport employees don't need to track me, they don't need to know anything. Now the airline employee that I get the ticket from needs to know I can pay for it as well as checkin baggage but that's it. If the airline wants to require IDs I have no problem with either as long as they keep it private and don't share it with the government. My problem is the government requiring ID. I was born in the Land Of The Free not the Soviet Union where you had to carry your internal passport and show it to whoever asked for it.
FalconWhen I was in college I never had the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude. I had the "I want to drink so I'm going to" attitude.
When I was in the US Army I would buy a drink and still be drinking it a couple of hours later. A mixed drink with rum, tequila, or something else would last me that long and a bottle or can of beer could last me a few hours. I attribute this to my mother raising me to drink responsibly, growing up she would give me some wine, beer, or something else to sip while eating and such but she'd never give me too much.
Fslconagreed. i don't get it. they let you drive, smoke, vote, and go die for your country, but you can't have a beer for another 3(?) years?
drinking age here is 19, which makes more sense to me.
For those reasons in the first sentence I believe 18 should be the age a person can buy alcohol. However I also believe a parents should be able to buy and serve it to their children. Unfortunately in the US a parent doing so might be arrested and have their children taken away for child endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or some such.
Falconthis is a disingenuous cop-out and you know it.
What's a cop-out is saying nuclear power is needed when it isn't.
finally, everything that makes our society modern comes from mining, either ore or pretrochemicals
despite the demand of 6 billion people for all these mined goods the planet is still here and beautiful, and many more people are worried about logging than mining.
I went up the tread to see where I said the above in bold yet I don't see it. Is it something you're making up I said?
So in closing, if you are so opposed to mining as the bane of the planet, then you need to send everything you own which includes plastic or metal to the recycling plant and go live with the amish, or cut it with the hypocrisy.
Who's being hypocritical, someone stating facts or someone making things up? Plastics coming from mines? You are either ignorant or making things up. Though plastics are now made from petrochemicals this hasn't always being true. Prior to the mid 1930s, when DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petro, nylon then rayon later, plastics were made from plants such as trees. The cellulose in trees gave the name Cellophane, a plastic. Cellophane is what was used to wrap stuff like sandwiches, the saran wrap of yesteryear. Kodak the camera company had a process whereby they used plant cellulose to make the plastic for film. Hemp was also a source of cellulose, as well as other things. Henry Ford designed and built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate in the '30s that used hemp in the construction and was made into fuel for the vehicle. In the end I am not opposed to mining but seeing as how there is no need for nuclear power plants there's no need to mine uranium!
FalconWell crap, after only 20-30 years of completely inhumane treatment, they would have been freed without intervention. Why didn't we just wait while peoples' lives were ruined systematically day by day.
It was better to end slavery as it ended instead of allowing it to continue, but it would be been better had slavery ended with the "Declaration of Independence". Thomas Jefferson the author of the DOI included in his first drafts of the DOI that all people including Blacks and Women had the same rights. However because slave owners and supporters had to sign it he was forced to change the DOI and get rid of this. I can hear it now, "But Thomas Jefferson owned slaves." Yes he owned slaves, slaves he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. TJ never bought any slave however he did free some slaves. He had planned on freeing all of the slaves however he wanted to pay off all of his debts first. Unfortunately he never did. Thinking about it, maybe he could have paid his debts off if he had freed his slaves.
Realize, also, that the damage and hate carried from slavery would have lasted generations after it was ended if it wasn't ended on principle, not personal gain.
Oh but damage and hatred are here today and if you pay attention to US news you'd know this. Maybe if slavery had ended because of economics people wouldn't have been so angry about being forced by law to end slavery. Even today there are a bunch of people who support state's rights. I am one. But not because of slavery, I don't believe anyone has the right to own anyone else nor can a state grant it.
FalconThe southern agricultural model was essentially low-technology work requiring a massive amount of labor.
Labor that had to be chained and guarded Slaves had to be housed and fed, then the slave watchers had to be as well. When one slave escaped or died another had to be bought and when one was injured and unable to work the labor went missing. Actually most southerners didn't own slaves because they were too expensive, most slaves were owned by large plantation owners. They could only afford slaves because of the large holdings. However when sons and daughters inherited plantations they were broken up thus loosing economy of scales.
Realize, also, that the damage and hate carried from slavery would have lasted generations after it was ended if it wasn't ended on principle, not personal gain.
This doesn't hold water. Even with slavery ended on principle, the Civil War wasn't really about slavery but about state rights, today almost 150 years later there's still damage and hatred. For instance all the stuff in the news about hang nooses. There are even racists on the air. And there are the skinheads and Neo Nazis. I knew someone, who though he was friendly with Blacks, still believed in slavery saying it was in the Bible. Of course as with many so called Christians, he missed the part where Jesus said he was teaching a new way and the Jews escaped from slavery, more than once, themselves. Actually if slavery had ended on economic grounds people would be more willing to accept the fact slavery was bad than being forced to end it.
It is important to end injustice because it is unjust, not because it is no longer profitable.
I agree but wanted to point out that economics would have eventually ended slavery. And as stated above the US Civil War was not about ending slavery but about states rights. The southern states seceded from the USA because they saw the federal government as violating states rights. Of those who seceded and formed the Confederate States of America 7 seceded before Abraham Lincoln was even elected.
FalconIf I need to I can tunnel into my own server and synchronize docs on the road.
Most people cannot. Either (in a corporate setting) IT decides it is not necessary, or (at home) they do not know how to do it, and they have a PC that is turned off when they are out rather than an always on server.
I don't know how to either but I know how to to use the net to find out how to setup a VPN. As for IT, if they are unwilling to allow it then they need to examine why and maybe change policies. I almost always have a computer, 2 even, running. That's the one area I use more power than I need to, everywhere else I try to reduce my energy usage.
Using a laptop as your primary PC does work, which is why they are becoming more practical.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro with a 200GB hdd and it's my primary computer. That's exactly why I want to setup a VPN with the PC at home, so I can access any files I don't have with me on the road. I used much more storage space than what will fit on my hdd, I installed a 750GB hdd in my PC at home I plan to use as a server and I've already used more than 250GB of the space. Early next year I hope to start working as a photographer and if so I may even need another hdd that's bigger. I only have a 35mm film SLR right now so it will take some tyme to use up 750GB, er 500GB. However if I am able to get some freelance jobs I plan on getting a DSLR and maybe a medium format camera, if so then I can quickly use up 500GB
Falcon