The End of America: May 10, 2005

[Antjo]

Reminds me of my favorite quote:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

 

[Omni04]

April Fools!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tin hat and a cigar, please!

Hey,

Why are we in this handbasket...and were are we going????

Has anyone seen my tin hat, cause I need it.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that we sit here fighting each other when the real enemy sneaks around unscathed by our rhetoric!

AmeriKa, the beautiful...

 

[RevDisk]

I don't see where it is requiring anyone to get an ID, or have an ID when outside their home. Again, if I am wrong, tell me, but all I see is the Feds saying that if they are accepting driver's licenses as valid ID, the state has to do certain things to ensure that only actual citizens are getting driver's licenses.

Uh, sort of.

It is not required to have an ID card if one is walking on public or (with permission) private property, per se. That doesn't mean you are exempt from mild harassment for not having proper ID. If you are stopped by the police, you MUST identify yourself unless you are a criminal. Some police think this means seeing an ID card, other think it is just your name. If you are a criminal, it's self-incrimination and thus the police can't force you to ID yourself. If you are a legit citizen, you might be committing a crime if you refuse to ID yourself. No, I am not kidding. Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

Make sense?

Did you find that in other than the context of building border barriers? It sounds a lot worse out of context.

It's still a bad precident. What if some guy has a home near the border and the feds bulldoze it. Yea, I want a fence at the border too. But what about folks that own the land touching said border?

It's not the end of the world, it is still a very bad clause. Exempting border protection from EPA regs and other similiar specific laws is not a bad thing. It's a very specific exemption about a specific issue. Saying "This border issue will no longer have any judicial review" is NOT specific exemption, it's a carte blanche.

Privacy of any sort died ten years ago, get over it. Any 14 year old with an internet connection can find out more about me or you, including a map to my house and political affiliations than information than is contained on an ID card.

I don't steal money so I don't care who knows how much I've got, I pay my taxes like a good boy so I don't care if they audit me. All the guns I own are legal so I don't care who knows I own them. Heck even the porn I look at on my computer is age and gender appropriate so I don't really care who knows about that either

The Bill of Rights is not designed to protect the people that maintain the status quo. It's to protect those that annoy the system. Just because corporations have eroded our privacy does not justify the government from further eroding our privacy.