Even under the Constitution and other contemporary documents, the references are generally in the plural. But even disregarding that, Texas was not the only independent nation to become part of the US. Others include:
Republic of California Republic of Hawaii Confederate States of America
There are probably others. But at least from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777 there is no doubt that there were 13 independent states in what is now the eastern USA.
Really? Can you tell me who the President of any of the countries was? Did these governments tax, hold elections, print currency, raise an army, send and receive ambassadors, create treaties or any of the other things that "states" do?
Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all require national ID cards. Do the citizens in these countries have no rights.
Let me ask you this, have you ever met a federal official? I have met two in my entire life, both FBI, one dating my brother and one was my brother's brother-in-law. That's it, two.
Have you ever met a state official? Those, I've met plenty of! Nearly every time I've met one, they've asked for ID and pretty much had to show it to them.
So, why are you so against a federal ID program? Are you afraid that FBI agents are going to start showing up everywhere asking for papers? I think you need to be worried ONLY if the feds take over local law enforcement. Of course, if that happens, what kind of ID you have still won't make any difference at all.
Are you volunteering to put all your personal information in this database?
Can you tell me how this limits my rights? That's what I keep hearing about here. Now if this is an database security issue, then you need to explain that all these people that think a federal ID card will somehow prevent them from speaking freely.
I guess that didn't answer your question. Now when you say "all my personal information", I have to say no. I say NO because ALL of my personal information includes things like the last time I masturbated, how many inches I really have, what do my farts smell like and so on. So ALL my personal info, no.
However, would you let the feds store information on you, like: how much money you spend on your house? if you're married what's your wife's name? when were you married? children? how many how far do you drive for work? does your wife work? does your child live with you? how big is your house?
and so on. I know you would send the answers to those questions to the federal government and allow them to store the data in a massive database where a team of government employees may scour over your data looking for errors. If they find errors, they can take all your stuff and lock you up in prison. Ask Al Capone. Of course, I'm talking about the IRS, a federal government agency that already has much more data on all of us that will ever be required by a federal ID program. And, unless you have no job or you are a tax evader, then you sent this data in before the deadline on the 17'th of this month.
So, Yeah, evidently I would let the feds put all my information in a database.
Any laws that the constitution allows the congress to make overrule the states. Frivolous power-grabbing does not.
Where does the Constitution allow for the FCC? Is the FCC unconstitutional? How about the Air Force? The national highway system, HUD, CDC, CIA, FBI, the Marine Core, FEMA and social security are not in the Constitution, yet, there they are. Can we have the courts rule all these things out of existence?
OK, let me try it another way: If congress is only allowed to make laws that are specifically, (read: already) spelled out in the Constitution, why do we even have a congress at all? Seems like don't really have much purpose.
personally I prefer the attitude of the other Slashdot posters, to yours... Your view is limited is all I have to say. If they took away your right to remain silent and speak in public or produce art, you would probably say the same thing, going to your dead-end job. "Please tell me what I am missing."
You mean the government has taken away your right to to remain silent and speak in public or produce art?
See, that's what I'm looking for! People keep claiming that they have lost rights, but no one can produce any. I'm in the US and still have all the rights that I had since I was born. I'm sorry to hear that you have not been so fortunate. What country are you in?
You don't miss something you don't use. Exercise your rights now.
Why? I've spent years smoking pot, chasing women, doing blow, chasing women, taking X, chasing women, drinking beer and chasing women. I didn't get married until I was over 30. I live the life I live now because that is my choice. Are you telling me that you will ridicule me for MY CHOICE. Do I not have the freedom to make the choices that I have made? You speak of freedom and then call me some kind of square because I made choices different that you? If I had to make your choices, it wouldn't be freedom then would it? Don't criticize my choices and then try to lecture me on freedom.
Finally, how is a national ID going to take away my rights? Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all have national IDs. Do the citizens in these countries live under tyranny? Of course not! So why would we suddenly have no rights if we adopt an national ID system?
I believe he was trying to make a joke. I got the joke. I just didn't find it funny. I thought the irony that I get laid more than he does, and he says I don't have a life, was pretty funny, however. I guess my humor is pretty dry. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
However, he does have a point that we are not enjoying true freedom as I remember it in the 90s, before that whole terrorist scare. Ah yes, I remember the 90's. After I got out of the Army, I went to college, smoked a lot of pot and drank WAY too much beer. True that I have less freedoms now. Not because of the government, but because I have responsibilities. I've grown up and taken them on in a quest to get more out of the life that others claim I don't have. (Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to go through life. That's why I've been losing weight!)
Then there's a shooting here or there, and all of a sudden the rest of the country panics and becomes COMPLETELY paranoid. For instance: a student here has worn an ammo belt with inactive bullets since the beginning of the year. Today, someone spots him wearing his usual ammo belt. They panick, remembering Virginia Tech, which was scary and disastrous, but still an ISOLATED INCIDENT, and call campus safety. Result? Our campus was paralyzed for an hour and that student will be sanctioned because of his clothing habits, because everyone is scared of a repeat of the Virginia tech disaster. Admittedly he's not being really smart about things putting that one a couple days later, but the point is that people are driven to panick by the crap the media shows us all the time.
This is typical knee jerk reaction. It will subside. I'm sure that trench-coat wearing would have been frowned upon a day after Columbine. I remember all the terrorism scares shortly after Sept 11th. Charles Joseph Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas on August 1, 1966 and killed 15 and wounded 31. I'm sure security was tight in Austin for several weeks after that. This is nothing new.
The turn happened sharply, and not just in this country, because of the 9/11 events.
The Terrorists have already won! Indeed Osama must be patting his shoulder! He didn't want us annihilated, he just wanted us to act like frightened chickens! And he got that, thanks to the oh-so-cooperative media, and a government trying itself to instill fear into its citizens! So yes, most of us don't really have a "life" anymore, if by life you imply freedom of mind, and freedom of fear!
Osama wants us out of the middle east. He said that before and after 9-11. He doesn't care about our freedom, or our malls or anything else we do over here. He just wants us out of the middle east because we are the only thing standing between what limited freedom they have and completed domination by sharia law. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, Osama gets his way.
Fear? It's funny you talk about fear. Nearly every country in the world has a national ID card. What's the problem with that? You talk about America having a fear of terrorist, but all I see on this board is people having an irrational fear of fucking ID cards. I can see the fear of terrorism thing. I saw 3000+ people get killed on 9-11. I have not seen a single person get killed by an ID card hijacking a plane. So while you can talk about the media whipping up fear over terrorism, I have to ask, Where the hell is the fear of ID cards coming from?
Ah but you don't have to show id to fly. Even the courts have ruled you don't have to. If you want to board a plane without showing id then you must consent to more thorough searchs.
Well, if the courts have ruled that you don't need an ID to fly, it won't matter if that ID is federal, state or library card. Mandating a federal ID won't change that. The courts have spoken on this issue.
TFA also describes the new ID being used when people enter or leave a plane or federal building. I agree that it would sacrifice some privacy and is probably not necessary for the federal government to have.
I still don't see how this is different that being required to show a STATE ID, as you do now.
Wrong way around, kiddo. Any rights not specifically allowed to the states go to the individual, and any rights not specifically allowed to the feds go to the states. The Federal Government should have MINIMAL power, not maximal. Check your US Constitution again.
OK, let me check. From Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Found it!
Congress has the right to pass laws according to the Constitution. Those laws that Congress and the Constitution do not forbid are granted to the states.
People don't realize that they are losing something until they try and do it and can't.
What will a federal ID prevent me from doing? I'm not trying to be a troll, I seriously want to know how a national ID shackles me any more than my current state ID does now.
To say that you haven't been effected yet is the most ignorant defense of the stripping of rights but sadly the most common. Imagine that a law was passed that stated you couldn't leave the country. Since you don't anyway, you say "so what" and go on. Then a law that says you can't practice a satanic religion, you say the same "so what, I don't do that anyway". And then a law comes along that does effect you. And you try and voice your opinion and find that your right to do that was taken away quite a bit ago.
I agree with all this, but I don't see how setting a federal ID standard strips me of any rights, prevents travel, forbids me from worshiping a spaghetti-based entity or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
It's not the issue that your opinion happens to be with the majority on this topic, the issue is when it doesn't. You have rights, you don't have to use them, but you should retain them for your future, your children, and the once great legacy of America. Land of the free.
Again, I agree whole heartedly! But I still don't see what a freedoms I give up with a federal ID.
No, you're right. However the REAL ID act is so far out of the bounds of that which the Federal Government is entitled to do, that it's not even funny.
Any law created by congress trumps state law. This is why California's medicinal marijuana laws won't stand up in a federal court. I don't see how REAL ID is any different that the federal government forbidding states from printing their own currency.
The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian).
So are all countries with a single ID standard totalitarian? Can you provide a list of countries who went totalitarian as a result of a nationalized ID standard and database? Actually, one will do.
Uh its pretty easy to check for DUI's out of state without a national ID. They can just make 50 queries against 50 databases for this persons SSN, name and whatever else.
OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights? With that logic, we should take away all the government's computers and make the use a chisel and stone. That should make use uberfree!
Finally, and this is MOST important, so try to focus both your brain cells here:
The US is a bunch of individual states, not one big unified country. There is a reason for this, and if you don't know what that is I suggest you make some effort to educate yourself.
Wow! And all this time I thought the US stood for United States. I guess I should educate myself as well. Did you learn that in community college?
I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing
A life.
So because I have a child, pay my bills, get laid every night, and don't jump onto the whole "Rove took all my rights" bandwagon, I have no life?
If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.
I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.
So why not give every Iraqi a gun and then we will see peace imiidiatly. Or is this idea of yours only appliable to Mericans and are other nations/people inferior?
Great idea. This way, those innocent Iraqis can finally take their country back!
Seriously though. What is the difference between the first amendment and the second, other than the number? If I were saying that rejecting free speech would have saved those thirty lives, would you be so quick to elevate the idea? How is the right to bear arms any different, or any less important? As soon as we start giving up Constitutional rights in the name of safety, it's all over (at least that's what I keep hearing around here when terrorism is the topic).
-->Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!
This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that allows governments to erode civil rights. There is not a single person in the US during the debate who ever denied the right of the police to access library records. The issue is whether the police can access such records without a warrant issued by an independent judge. The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution is pretty damn clearly written on that issue and it continues to irk a great many of us that the restriction to obtain a warrant first is constantly eroded.
First, let me say that I did not put forth an opinion either way on the issue. Next, since you've assigned one to me, I guess I shouldn't disappoint:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Yeah, I agree. It's not that hard to understand at all. The word LIBRARY is nowhere in there! Just like "secure in the market", or "secure at the neighbors house" or even "secure from governmental representative listening at ye window to ye conversations." Eavesdropping was around long before the Constitution, and yet the founders mysteriously left it out. However, just like library, I guess that won't keep you guys from adding it in. You may as well add "except for pigs" at the end of the Bill or Rights.
Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
I would agree, but could you imagine what would happen if the FBI (or Australian equivalent) started demanding the sales records from the local video stores? Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!
If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day.
Not true. Nearly everywhere that has carry and conceal laws, crime has gone down. From here:
Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.
Either way, I see it as a rights issue. Just like many here think that an increase in terrorist attacks in not worth letting the NSA have a computer monitor their calls to Pakistan, I feel that I should be allowed to carry. Regardless of your opinion, I hope you don't find yourself in a situation like this
Suzanna Gratia Hupp remembers reaching for a butter knife as a madman shot her parents dead at a packed cafeteria one cold October day in 1991.
"I was looking for a weapon, any weapon, because my handgun was 100 feet away, outside in my car. I made an incredibly stupid decision to follow the law, and that cost my family's lives," she says as she reflects on the massacre that ended with 24 people dead inside the Luby's Cafeteria at Killeen, a military town in Central Texas.
You should feel foolish, now. Why fight with the nutwingsters?
Two reasons: 1) I'm trying to quit smoking and it's therapeutic.
2) Someone has to challenge these people. Otherwise, normal people hear it over and over and over again and start to believe it. See: Rosie O'Donnell and brownshirts.
You accuse me of "spreading disinformation" immediately after claiming that the Bush's were responsible for 9-11 (I assume that the Pearl Harbor style event you are speaking of) in order to conquer Iraq. You know this because it is all plainly spelled out in some super-secret document hidden next to the "real" Da Vinci Code and original Hollywood made footage of the moon landing. Of course, we all know that the villainous scum of the earth always puts their dastardly plans to conquer the world down on paper and then... wait, let me get a straight face here... SIGNS THE FUCKING THING..... I'm sorry, I can't go on. This whole thing is just too fucking ridiculous. I see that I'm typing a response to a fucking lunatic or paranoid sociopath who is real need of psychiatric help.
Slashdot Mirror
Even under the Constitution and other contemporary documents, the references are generally in the plural. But even disregarding that, Texas was not the only independent nation to become part of the US. Others include:
Republic of California
Republic of Hawaii
Confederate States of America
There are probably others. But at least from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777 there is no doubt that there were 13 independent states in what is now the eastern USA.
Really? Can you tell me who the President of any of the countries was? Did these governments tax, hold elections, print currency, raise an army, send and receive ambassadors, create treaties or any of the other things that "states" do?
Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all require national ID cards. Do the citizens in these countries have no rights.
Let me ask you this, have you ever met a federal official? I have met two in my entire life, both FBI, one dating my brother and one was my brother's brother-in-law. That's it, two.
Have you ever met a state official? Those, I've met plenty of! Nearly every time I've met one, they've asked for ID and pretty much had to show it to them.
So, why are you so against a federal ID program? Are you afraid that FBI agents are going to start showing up everywhere asking for papers? I think you need to be worried ONLY if the feds take over local law enforcement. Of course, if that happens, what kind of ID you have still won't make any difference at all.
Are you volunteering to put all your personal information in this database?
Can you tell me how this limits my rights? That's what I keep hearing about here. Now if this is an database security issue, then you need to explain that all these people that think a federal ID card will somehow prevent them from speaking freely.
I guess that didn't answer your question. Now when you say "all my personal information", I have to say no. I say NO because ALL of my personal information includes things like the last time I masturbated, how many inches I really have, what do my farts smell like and so on. So ALL my personal info, no.
However, would you let the feds store information on you, like:
how much money you spend on your house?
if you're married
what's your wife's name?
when were you married?
children? how many
how far do you drive for work?
does your wife work?
does your child live with you?
how big is your house?
and so on. I know you would send the answers to those questions to the federal government and allow them to store the data in a massive database where a team of government employees may scour over your data looking for errors. If they find errors, they can take all your stuff and lock you up in prison. Ask Al Capone.
Of course, I'm talking about the IRS, a federal government agency that already has much more data on all of us that will ever be required by a federal ID program. And, unless you have no job or you are a tax evader, then you sent this data in before the deadline on the 17'th of this month.
So, Yeah, evidently I would let the feds put all my information in a database.
Any laws that the constitution allows the congress to make overrule the states. Frivolous power-grabbing does not.
Where does the Constitution allow for the FCC? Is the FCC unconstitutional? How about the Air Force? The national highway system, HUD, CDC, CIA, FBI, the Marine Core, FEMA and social security are not in the Constitution, yet, there they are. Can we have the courts rule all these things out of existence?
OK, let me try it another way: If congress is only allowed to make laws that are specifically, (read: already) spelled out in the Constitution, why do we even have a congress at all? Seems like don't really have much purpose.
personally I prefer the attitude of the other Slashdot posters, to yours... Your view is limited is all I have to say. If they took away your right to remain silent and speak in public or produce art, you would probably say the same thing, going to your dead-end job. "Please tell me what I am missing."
You mean the government has taken away your right to to remain silent and speak in public or produce art?
See, that's what I'm looking for! People keep claiming that they have lost rights, but no one can produce any. I'm in the US and still have all the rights that I had since I was born. I'm sorry to hear that you have not been so fortunate. What country are you in?
You don't miss something you don't use. Exercise your rights now.
Why? I've spent years smoking pot, chasing women, doing blow, chasing women, taking X, chasing women, drinking beer and chasing women. I didn't get married until I was over 30. I live the life I live now because that is my choice. Are you telling me that you will ridicule me for MY CHOICE. Do I not have the freedom to make the choices that I have made? You speak of freedom and then call me some kind of square because I made choices different that you? If I had to make your choices, it wouldn't be freedom then would it? Don't criticize my choices and then try to lecture me on freedom.
Finally, how is a national ID going to take away my rights? Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all have national IDs. Do the citizens in these countries live under tyranny? Of course not! So why would we suddenly have no rights if we adopt an national ID system?
I believe he was trying to make a joke.
I got the joke. I just didn't find it funny. I thought the irony that I get laid more than he does, and he says I don't have a life, was pretty funny, however. I guess my humor is pretty dry. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
However, he does have a point that we are not enjoying true freedom as I remember it in the 90s, before that whole terrorist scare.
Ah yes, I remember the 90's. After I got out of the Army, I went to college, smoked a lot of pot and drank WAY too much beer. True that I have less freedoms now. Not because of the government, but because I have responsibilities. I've grown up and taken them on in a quest to get more out of the life that others claim I don't have. (Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to go through life. That's why I've been losing weight!)
Then there's a shooting here or there, and all of a sudden the rest of the country panics and becomes COMPLETELY paranoid.
For instance: a student here has worn an ammo belt with inactive bullets since the beginning of the year. Today, someone spots him wearing his usual ammo belt. They panick, remembering Virginia Tech, which was scary and disastrous, but still an ISOLATED INCIDENT, and call campus safety.
Result?
Our campus was paralyzed for an hour and that student will be sanctioned because of his clothing habits, because everyone is scared of a repeat of the Virginia tech disaster. Admittedly he's not being really smart about things putting that one a couple days later, but the point is that people are driven to panick by the crap the media shows us all the time.
This is typical knee jerk reaction. It will subside. I'm sure that trench-coat wearing would have been frowned upon a day after Columbine. I remember all the terrorism scares shortly after Sept 11th. Charles Joseph Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas on August 1, 1966 and killed 15 and wounded 31. I'm sure security was tight in Austin for several weeks after that. This is nothing new.
The turn happened sharply, and not just in this country, because of the 9/11 events.
The Terrorists have already won! Indeed Osama must be patting his shoulder! He didn't want us annihilated, he just wanted us to act like frightened chickens! And he got that, thanks to the oh-so-cooperative media, and a government trying itself to instill fear into its citizens!
So yes, most of us don't really have a "life" anymore, if by life you imply freedom of mind, and freedom of fear!
Osama wants us out of the middle east. He said that before and after 9-11. He doesn't care about our freedom, or our malls or anything else we do over here. He just wants us out of the middle east because we are the only thing standing between what limited freedom they have and completed domination by sharia law. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, Osama gets his way.
Fear? It's funny you talk about fear. Nearly every country in the world has a national ID card. What's the problem with that? You talk about America having a fear of terrorist, but all I see on this board is people having an irrational fear of fucking ID cards. I can see the fear of terrorism thing. I saw 3000+ people get killed on 9-11. I have not seen a single person get killed by an ID card hijacking a plane. So while you can talk about the media whipping up fear over terrorism, I have to ask, Where the hell is the fear of ID cards coming from?
Ah but you don't have to show id to fly. Even the courts have ruled you don't have to. If you want to board a plane without showing id then you must consent to more thorough searchs.
Well, if the courts have ruled that you don't need an ID to fly, it won't matter if that ID is federal, state or library card. Mandating a federal ID won't change that. The courts have spoken on this issue.
Also your argument about the DUI queries is silly
The DUI argument was silly, but not mine.
TFA also describes the new ID being used when people enter or leave a plane or federal building. I agree that it would sacrifice some privacy and is probably not necessary for the federal government to have.
I still don't see how this is different that being required to show a STATE ID, as you do now.
OK, let me check. From Article VI:
Found it!
Congress has the right to pass laws according to the Constitution. Those laws that Congress and the Constitution do not forbid are granted to the states.
People don't realize that they are losing something until they try and do it and can't.
What will a federal ID prevent me from doing? I'm not trying to be a troll, I seriously want to know how a national ID shackles me any more than my current state ID does now.
To say that you haven't been effected yet is the most ignorant defense of the stripping of rights but sadly the most common. Imagine that a law was passed that stated you couldn't leave the country. Since you don't anyway, you say "so what" and go on. Then a law that says you can't practice a satanic religion, you say the same "so what, I don't do that anyway". And then a law comes along that does effect you. And you try and voice your opinion and find that your right to do that was taken away quite a bit ago.
I agree with all this, but I don't see how setting a federal ID standard strips me of any rights, prevents travel, forbids me from worshiping a spaghetti-based entity or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
It's not the issue that your opinion happens to be with the majority on this topic, the issue is when it doesn't. You have rights, you don't have to use them, but you should retain them for your future, your children, and the once great legacy of America. Land of the free.
Again, I agree whole heartedly! But I still don't see what a freedoms I give up with a federal ID.
You lost the same freedoms that non-drinkers lost during prohibition.
Well, a non-drinker during prohibition lost the "right" to drink. Can you tell me what a federal ID will prevent me from doing?
As to the rest of your post, I don't see how a national ID standard gives the Feds any more power than they have now.
No, you're right. However the REAL ID act is so far out of the bounds of that which the Federal Government is entitled to do, that it's not even funny.
Any law created by congress trumps state law. This is why California's medicinal marijuana laws won't stand up in a federal court. I don't see how REAL ID is any different that the federal government forbidding states from printing their own currency.
Perhaps in theory... However, in practice, our country might have been better named were it called The Losely Associated States of America.
Actually, that's more of a confederacy. The Confederate States of America failed around 1864. Are you saying we should go back to that idea?
yes "United STATES"
What do all o fthe following have in common:
New Hampshire
Arizona
France
Iowa
Iran
Give up? Its easy: They are all STATES
Only one of the 50 United States has ever been an actual state.
The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian).
So are all countries with a single ID standard totalitarian? Can you provide a list of countries who went totalitarian as a result of a nationalized ID standard and database? Actually, one will do.
Uh its pretty easy to check for DUI's out of state without a national ID. They can just make 50 queries against 50 databases for this persons SSN, name and whatever else.
OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights? With that logic, we should take away all the government's computers and make the use a chisel and stone. That should make use uberfree!
Wow! And all this time I thought the US stood for United States. I guess I should educate myself as well. Did you learn that in community college?
If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.
I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.
Thank you.
ArcherB
So why not give every Iraqi a gun and then we will see peace imiidiatly. Or is this idea of yours only appliable to Mericans and are other nations/people inferior?
Great idea. This way, those innocent Iraqis can finally take their country back!
Seriously though. What is the difference between the first amendment and the second, other than the number? If I were saying that rejecting free speech would have saved those thirty lives, would you be so quick to elevate the idea? How is the right to bear arms any different, or any less important? As soon as we start giving up Constitutional rights in the name of safety, it's all over (at least that's what I keep hearing around here when terrorism is the topic).
-->Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!
This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that allows governments to erode civil rights. There is not a single person in the US during the debate who ever denied the right of the police to access library records. The issue is whether the police can access such records without a warrant issued by an independent judge. The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution is pretty damn clearly written on that issue and it continues to irk a great many of us that the restriction to obtain a warrant first is constantly eroded.
First, let me say that I did not put forth an opinion either way on the issue. Next, since you've assigned one to me, I guess I shouldn't disappoint:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Yeah, I agree. It's not that hard to understand at all. The word LIBRARY is nowhere in there! Just like "secure in the market", or "secure at the neighbors house" or even "secure from governmental representative listening at ye window to ye conversations." Eavesdropping was around long before the Constitution, and yet the founders mysteriously left it out. However, just like library, I guess that won't keep you guys from adding it in. You may as well add "except for pigs" at the end of the Bill or Rights.
Is that what you were looking for?
Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
I would agree, but could you imagine what would happen if the FBI (or Australian equivalent) started demanding the sales records from the local video stores? Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!
Not true. Nearly everywhere that has carry and conceal laws, crime has gone down. From here:
Either way, I see it as a rights issue. Just like many here think that an increase in terrorist attacks in not worth letting the NSA have a computer monitor their calls to Pakistan, I feel that I should be allowed to carry. Regardless of your opinion, I hope you don't find yourself in a situation like this
You should feel foolish, now. Why fight with the nutwingsters?
Two reasons:
1) I'm trying to quit smoking and it's therapeutic.
2) Someone has to challenge these people. Otherwise, normal people hear it over and over and over again and start to believe it. See: Rosie O'Donnell and brownshirts.
You accuse me of "spreading disinformation" immediately after claiming that the Bush's were responsible for 9-11 (I assume that the Pearl Harbor style event you are speaking of) in order to conquer Iraq. You know this because it is all plainly spelled out in some super-secret document hidden next to the "real" Da Vinci Code and original Hollywood made footage of the moon landing. Of course, we all know that the villainous scum of the earth always puts their dastardly plans to conquer the world down on paper and then... wait, let me get a straight face here... SIGNS THE FUCKING THING..... I'm sorry, I can't go on. This whole thing is just too fucking ridiculous. I see that I'm typing a response to a fucking lunatic or paranoid sociopath who is real need of psychiatric help.