Homeland Security to press ahead with Real ID

[doniston]

Then explain why, if I am as delusional as you imply, would these three factors (National ID cards, Smart cards, and microchip personal record cards) be culminating during this time?

Because the government is going overboard (as usual)instead of thaking a slow and reasonable approach

 

[doniston]

I don't see a difference in consolidating many government agencies into a few. Reducing bureaucracy is all they'd be doing in my eyes. The majority of the arguments against a Federal ID system is purely ideological- the alleged potential violations of privacy already exist with what we have now.

Agreed

 

[Taomon]

Questions:
As for the rest,---- what privacy???? SS numbers prove nothing, neither do unverifiable Green cards.

Social Security numbers affect where you live, what you drive, and even where you work. Credit ratings based on expenditures or lack thereof are tied into the SS number. I think that system started with good intentions, but the banks have perverted the whole thing, as usual.

 

[Taomon]

Because the government is going overboard (as usual)instead of thaking a slow and reasonable approach

Agreed. The problem is the why. Why are they going overboard? Just to protect us or to alter our society?

 

[doniston]

Your every move.

Sorry, but BS

 

[doniston]

Agreed. The problem is the why. Why are they going overboard? Just to protect us or to alter our society?

Your question--- you answer it.

 

[Taomon]

Your question--- you answer it.

Okay I will...it is to alter our society. The aim is to close the society and control it with para-military, fear-mongering, torture, secret detentions, and marginalization of the Constitution.

They want to stop dissent.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sorry, but BS

You have small point but it stands on very shaky ground. This is like back when they said they wouldn't ticket you for not wearing a seat belt, just get a warning. Today you AND your passengers get ticketed hundreds of dollars. You can also whine all day about this being a "slippery slope" argument but you only have to look at the "slippery slope" use of your social security number - which originally was supposed to be solely for social security alone - to take a guess at what the future use of Real IDs might look like. One step at a time...

Starting with Real IDs that everybody must use just about everywhere for "federal uses" and getting everybody into a single federal data bank is only the first move, but a very key and critical one. The feds must first be able to positively ID everybody before the Real fun begins. For example:

You rent a car for a trip. You use your Visa card. The government today has access to your Visa records if they have reason to do so. That's how the feds can know you rented a car today. Today there could also be a hidden chip on the car for sending locating signals in case you stole the car from the rental company. This is already today's technology but it is not integrated.

However, think ahead a little. The government now steps in regarding that chip and adds "enhancements". Now when you drive to the next town in a hurry, you find later a couple of speeding tickets billed to your Visa card because you broke the law.

In fact this form of income excites the government so much that the next step is to make it a Law to imbed every auto with a chip. Congress could also make it a law to place positive ID chips on your car in order for you to even start up your car - all for your "safety" of course. What's the REAL result? You now have a "cop" on your tail day and night.

So unless you walk everywhere, the government now knows where you are almost all the time. Of course they eventually could just go to the next step and make it real easy for them by just imbedding the chip into you....for your "safety" of course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some "vote".

Point is, you got a vote on it to the same degree that you got a vote on anything else.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think we should abdicate our state powers to the feds just because the feds are doing a crappy job controlling illegal invaders into our country. Why should we give up our states rights because the feds can't do their job of controlling our national borders? And if they can't manage a simple task like verifying a SS number for an employer, why is that justification for them to expand and have even more control over U.S. citizens?


Who is trying to control you? do you not already have a SS# that is as good as anything else in tracking your behaviour? Do you realize that w4's that you signed when you became employed have the exact same informtation available to the exact same people? The Federal I-9 for documents your two forms of id that convey work status. Do you think these documents *poof* disappear into never-never land the day after orientation?

Do you want to give employers the tools it needs or not? Are you more comfortable pretending this is about personal liberty while clipping your nose despite your face? I gave you a specific example of how employers are being crushed in between the factions of potential discrimination and not hiring illegals and instead of seeing a viable solution in new IDs we pretend that some black helicopter is going to descend and steal your guns or something.

Everyone of you sporting a SS# and crying about federal tracking with new IDs are your own punchline.


This ID could eventually centralize and track your daily whereabouts and activities. Every time you went anywhere or bought anything or did simple things like check a book out

paranoid drivel. Does the teller at Barnes and Noble strip search you and give you a rectal exam too? LIBRARY CARDS DO NOT REQIRE CITIZENSHIP, OR ELIGIBLE WORK STATUS, TO APPLY.



of a library or take a walk in a park. And believe me, its use will become more and more required to the point where the feds could easily track you in real time in living color at the push of a button.

You sound like a Philip K Dick shrot story but with less promise of a profound ending. Do you realize how tin foily you sound?


I don't wish to give up my personal freedom and privacy on the lame excuse that the feds need a national ID card in order to control a bunch of illegal mexicans. Ha! They've already shown that they don't give a damn about our borders.


Can you list for me any amount of concievable exmples where such an ID would, in any way, hinder you or allow others to track you? Please, be specific instead of tossing out something from an Orson Wells radio program.

 

[Shogun]

The original purpose of this number was to track individuals' accounts within the Social Security program. It has since come to be used as a unique identifier for individuals within the United States, although rare errors occur where duplicates do exist. Employee records, patient records, student records, and credit records are sometimes indexed by Social Security number. The U.S. military has used the Social Security number as an identification number for the Army and Air Force since July 1, 1969, the Navy and Marine Corps since January 1, 1972, and the Coast Guard since October 1, 1974.[5]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no law requiring a U.S. citizen to apply for a Social Security number to live or work in the United States; however, it is required for parents to claim their children as tax dependents[6]. Although some people do not have an SSN assigned to them, it is becoming ever increasingly difficult to engage in legitimate financial activities without one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number



Let's see you jokers with the iron pot on your head and the alien hunting shotgun in your hands turn off the spooky radio show and start burning your social security cards.

 

[doniston]

Okay I will...it is to alter our society. The aim is to close the society and control it with para-military, fear-mongering, torture, secret detentions, and marginalization of the Constitution.

They want to stop dissent.

Your opinion,---------- You are welcome to it

That is nothing new, but you asked "WHY NOW"

you didn't answer that.

 

[Angel Heart]

anyone know how many states already comply.....anyone know the grounds on why some states are objecting?....

Here's some info on the Oregon side of things:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=47977&sid=4&fid=1

We have the illegals protesting at the state capital.

 

[Taomon]

Your opinion,---------- You are welcome to it

That is nothing new, but you asked "WHY NOW"

you didn't answer that.

9/11 brought a paradigm change. People are scared, they are angry, they want to feel safe. Bush is an opportunist. He saw 9/11 as an opportunity to do things that he never would have gotten away with.

Our society is closing. Why? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When people ask why it disrupts that. They seek to quite dissent for good. They seek to enslave us. They seek to consolidate power and money to a small cabal of institutes (banks, military, intelligence, investors). Once America is under lock & key, the world will be next.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our society is closing. Why? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When people ask why it disrupts that

Speaking of 'asking why', I dont recall seeing a response to me asking:
If is it never necessary to kill someone, why then...
...do pilice officers carry guns?
...are police officers taught to shoot at center mass?
...and then...
...should every police officer that kills someone be charged with murder?

 

[doniston]

9/11 brought a paradigm change. People are scared, they are angry, they want to feel safe. Bush is an opportunist. He saw 9/11 as an opportunity to do things that he never would have gotten away with.

Our society is closing. Why? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When people ask why it disrupts that. They seek to quite dissent for good. They seek to enslave us. They seek to consolidate power and money to a small cabal of institutes (banks, military, intelligence, investors). Once America is under lock & key, the world will be next.

Sorry, I disagree, especially about 911. I think you will find the majority now understand why it happened. and if they are afraid, it is of our own government. Not Bin Ladin and company..

 

[doniston]

Speaking of 'asking why', I dont recall seeing a response to me asking:
If is it never necessary to kill someone, why then...
...do pilice officers carry guns?
...are police officers taught to shoot at center mass?
...and then...
...should every police officer that kills someone be charged with murder?

Your questions are nonsenical--- However----:

1 There is such a thing as wounding someone rather than killing them.
2 Because there are too many people out there who look at law enfordement as a kill or be killed situation.
3 Of course not. But there certainly are some.

 

[Taomon]

Sorry, I disagree, especially about 911. I think you will find the majority now understand why it happened. and if they are afraid, it is of our own government. Not Bin Ladin and company..

I slightly agree. I think more and more people are realizing that the hysteria that Bush stirred up throughout his presidency was a shameful farce, but we are not out of the woods yet.

 

[Taomon]

Speaking of 'asking why', I dont recall seeing a response to me asking:
If is it never necessary to kill someone, why then...
...do pilice officers carry guns?
...are police officers taught to shoot at center mass?
...and then...
...should every police officer that kills someone be charged with murder?

I actually did answer you many posts ago.

Police carry guns because our law enforcement has always been severe and blood thirst. Look at the posse's and police forces throughout our history. Why are there more guns per capita in Canada than America and yet there is grossly more gun related violence in America. We are not peaceful.

Police are taught to shoot at center mass? News to me.

If a police officer kills, and it can be proven that it was not the only alternative, he should be charged with murder...and police have.

 

[Gunny]

I slightly agree. I think more and more people are realizing that the hysteria that Bush stirred up throughout his presidency was a shameful farce, but we are not out of the woods yet.

I think the hysteria stirred up ABOUT Bush throughout his Presidency has been a shameful farce.