In the first time in American history! Republican admninistration presses forward on internal passpo

January 12, 2008

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>

>>Jim999 wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>

>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>

>>>

>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>

>>I don't want to be a bean.

>

> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>secure? You like identity theft?

You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

WB Yeats

January 13, 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:03:30 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>Jim999 wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>

>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>

>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>

>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>> secure? You like identity theft?

>

>I don't consider illegal immigrants major passenger groups at the

>airport. I doubt the "real id" will make security lines at airports be

>any faster or better.

>

>I also know that computers can be used beneficially or for purposes not

>stated. I don't trust the government to always be upfront. The purpose

>can be changed from what is stated. In this instance, I don't trust the

>government.

>

>As one person noted, why isn't the NRA supporting gun registration.

Start your own thread if you wish to talk about that.

January 13, 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:56:52 GMT, Xenu@aol.COM (Friendly Xenu) wrote:

>Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>>>January 11, 2008

>>>

>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>

>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>

>Why do rightards want a theofascist State?

>

I asked first. Now answer.

January 13, 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>

>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>

>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>

>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>secure? You like identity theft?

>

>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>

>WB Yeats

I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

happens, computer records can be assessed.

For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

cut down on bank robberies?

January 13, 2008

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:46:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>One more thought. Say you are catching a plane from Virginia. How will the

>screeners know that the drivers license you show them from say Hawaii, is an

>authentic drivers license?

>

You push the red button on the license, hear "Aloha" and the sound of

the surf. Hi, Jer.

>

>"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>news:JGPhj.38621$k27.4026@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>> January 11, 2008

>>

>> 17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>

>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>>

>> Filed at 2:27 p.m. ET

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Residents of at least 17 states are suddenly stuck in

>> the middle of a fight between the Bush administration and state

>> governments over post-Sept. 11 security rules for driver's licenses -- a

>> dispute that, by May, could leave millions of people unable to use their

>> licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings.

>>

>> Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was unveiling final

>> details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want

>> their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states

>> must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the

>> legislation.

>>

>> Chertoff, as he revealed final details of the REAL ID Act, said that in

>> instances where a particular state doesn't seek a waiver, its residents

>> will have to use a passport or a newly created federal passport card if

>> they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.

>>

>> ''The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love

>> to have a REAL ID license but can't get one,'' Chertoff said. ''But in the

>> end, the rule is the rule as passed by Congress.''

>>

>> Chertoff spoke as he discussed the details of the administration's plan to

>> improve security for driver's licenses in all 50 states -- an effort

>> delayed due to opposition from states worried about the cost and civil

>> libertarians upset about what they believe are invasions of privacy.

>>

>> Under the rules announced Friday, Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will

>> have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years.

>>

>> The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final

>> regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for

>> terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued

>> identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been

>> pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

>>

>> To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a

>> secure ID initiative that Congress approved in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key

>> deadline in 2011 -- when federal authorities hope all states will be in

>> compliance -- and then further measures to be enacted three years later.

>>

>> To make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal

>> authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to

>> $3.9 billion, a 73 percent decline, said Homeland Security officials

>> familiar with the plan.

>>

>> The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort,

>> particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The

>> DHS and other officials say the only way to ensure an ID is safe is to

>> check it against secure government data; critics such as the ACLU say that

>> creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its

>> personal data pilfered.

>>

>> In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to

>> the ''first-ever national identity card system,'' which ''would

>> irreparably damage the fabric of American life.''

>>

>> The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

>>

>> The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had four

>> driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, created in

>> response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: ''One driver,

>> one license.''

>>

>> By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building

>> would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the

>> notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security

>> officials said.

>>

>> The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone

>> new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group

>> being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017,

>> even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

>>

>> So far, 17 states have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to the

>> REAL ID Act's provisions, many due to concerns it will cost them too much

>> to comply. The 17, according to the ACLU, are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia,

>> Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

>> Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and

>> Washington state.

>>

>> Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

>>

>> The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the

>> beginning of the application instead of the end so that if someone is

>> rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's

>> photo would be kept on file and checked if that person tried to con the

>> system again.

>>

>> The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain

>> microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu

>> which security measures they will put in their cards.

>>

>> Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking

>> both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license

>> applicants.

>>

>> Most states already check Social Security numbers and about half check

>> immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and

>> California, have already implemented many of the security measures

>> envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the

>> only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph

>> at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

>>

>> After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide

>> practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks,

>> including state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify

>> those applicants who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying

>> birth certificates and checking with other states to ensure an applicant

>> doesn't have more than one license.

>>

>> A few states have already signed written agreements indicating they plan

>> to comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation

>> or resolutions objecting to it, often because of concerns about the cost

>> of the extra security.

>>

January 13, 2008

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:44:41 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"

<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, what about those who do not drive? And as the

>article points out, what is to prevent a terrorist from getting a drivers

>license?

>

They will use the same false information they used to get any driver's

license to get the government ID. Whatever we do, they will find a

way around it.

>

>"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>news:JGPhj.38621$k27.4026@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>> January 11, 2008

>>

>> 17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>

>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>>

>> Filed at 2:27 p.m. ET

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Residents of at least 17 states are suddenly stuck in

>> the middle of a fight between the Bush administration and state

>> governments over post-Sept. 11 security rules for driver's licenses -- a

>> dispute that, by May, could leave millions of people unable to use their

>> licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings.

>>

>> Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was unveiling final

>> details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want

>> their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states

>> must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the

>> legislation.

>>

>> Chertoff, as he revealed final details of the REAL ID Act, said that in

>> instances where a particular state doesn't seek a waiver, its residents

>> will have to use a passport or a newly created federal passport card if

>> they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.

>>

>> ''The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love

>> to have a REAL ID license but can't get one,'' Chertoff said. ''But in the

>> end, the rule is the rule as passed by Congress.''

>>

>> Chertoff spoke as he discussed the details of the administration's plan to

>> improve security for driver's licenses in all 50 states -- an effort

>> delayed due to opposition from states worried about the cost and civil

>> libertarians upset about what they believe are invasions of privacy.

>>

>> Under the rules announced Friday, Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will

>> have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years.

>>

>> The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final

>> regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for

>> terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued

>> identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been

>> pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

>>

>> To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a

>> secure ID initiative that Congress approved in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key

>> deadline in 2011 -- when federal authorities hope all states will be in

>> compliance -- and then further measures to be enacted three years later.

>>

>> To make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal

>> authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to

>> $3.9 billion, a 73 percent decline, said Homeland Security officials

>> familiar with the plan.

>>

>> The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort,

>> particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The

>> DHS and other officials say the only way to ensure an ID is safe is to

>> check it against secure government data; critics such as the ACLU say that

>> creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its

>> personal data pilfered.

>>

>> In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to

>> the ''first-ever national identity card system,'' which ''would

>> irreparably damage the fabric of American life.''

>>

>> The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

>>

>> The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had four

>> driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, created in

>> response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: ''One driver,

>> one license.''

>>

>> By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building

>> would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the

>> notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security

>> officials said.

>>

>> The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone

>> new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group

>> being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017,

>> even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

>>

>> So far, 17 states have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to the

>> REAL ID Act's provisions, many due to concerns it will cost them too much

>> to comply. The 17, according to the ACLU, are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia,

>> Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

>> Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and

>> Washington state.

>>

>> Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

>>

>> The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the

>> beginning of the application instead of the end so that if someone is

>> rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's

>> photo would be kept on file and checked if that person tried to con the

>> system again.

>>

>> The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain

>> microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu

>> which security measures they will put in their cards.

>>

>> Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking

>> both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license

>> applicants.

>>

>> Most states already check Social Security numbers and about half check

>> immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and

>> California, have already implemented many of the security measures

>> envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the

>> only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph

>> at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

>>

>> After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide

>> practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks,

>> including state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify

>> those applicants who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying

>> birth certificates and checking with other states to ensure an applicant

>> doesn't have more than one license.

>>

>> A few states have already signed written agreements indicating they plan

>> to comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation

>> or resolutions objecting to it, often because of concerns about the cost

>> of the extra security.

>>

January 13, 2008

Jim999 wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:56:52 GMT, Xenu@aol.COM (Friendly Xenu) wrote:

>

>> Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>> January 11, 2008

>>>>

>>>> 17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>

>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>> Why do rightards want a theofascist State?

>>

> I asked first. Now answer.

It's government data-mining.

This is what the GOP has come to, as it has been taken over

by hardline Southern conservatives that have contempt for

individual liberty, especially the liberty of

people/groups/states/regions that they don't

like.

Richard.

January 13, 2008

Jim999 wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:03:30 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>

>>Jim999 wrote:

>>

>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>

>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>

>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>

>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>

>>I don't consider illegal immigrants major passenger groups at the

>>airport. I doubt the "real id" will make security lines at airports be

>>any faster or better.

>>

>>I also know that computers can be used beneficially or for purposes not

>>stated. I don't trust the government to always be upfront. The purpose

>>can be changed from what is stated. In this instance, I don't trust the

>>government.

>>

>>As one person noted, why isn't the NRA supporting gun registration.

>

> Start your own thread if you wish to talk about that.

Why do you run away from arguments you start?

January 13, 2008

Jim999 wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>

>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>

>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>

>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>

>>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

>

> Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

> move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>

>>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>>

>>WB Yeats

>

> I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

> happens, computer records can be assessed.

> For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

> to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

> cut down on bank robberies?

Nobody said right wingers aren't control freaks. If you seek unAmerican

activities and desires, seek out a right winger like Jim999.

January 13, 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:16:34 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>Jim999 wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>>

>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>>wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>>

>>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>>

>>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>>

>>>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>>>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

>>

>> Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

>> move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>>

>>>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>>>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>>>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>>>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>>>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>>>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>>>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>>>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>>>

>>>WB Yeats

>>

>> I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

>> happens, computer records can be assessed.

>> For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

>> to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

>> cut down on bank robberies?

>

>Nobody said right wingers aren't control freaks. If you seek unAmerican

> activities and desires, seek out a right winger like Jim999.

Thank you for your support.

January 13, 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:42:13 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>

>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>

>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>

>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>

>>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

>

> Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

>move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>

>>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>>

>>WB Yeats

>

> I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

>happens, computer records can be assessed.

> For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

>to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

>cut down on bank robberies?

Then you belong residing in some totalitarian system. Although if you

wait a few decades the US just might be one.

WB Yeats

January 13, 2008

On Jan 11, 11:09

January 13, 2008

On Jan 12, 11:03

January 14, 2008

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:22:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:42:13 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>>

>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>>wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>>

>>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>>

>>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>>

>>>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>>>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

>>

>> Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

>>move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>>

>>>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>>>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>>>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>>>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>>>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>>>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>>>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>>>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>>>

>>>WB Yeats

>>

>> I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

>>happens, computer records can be assessed.

>> For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

>>to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

>>cut down on bank robberies?

>

>Then you belong residing in some totalitarian system. Although if you

>wait a few decades the US just might be one.

>

Oh, so you're in favor of crime. My plan would virtually

eliminate it. A safe society for a change.

January 14, 2008

"Jim999" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:u5blo3d5nk5i3mfn5mrsus7qmsi52lbbg7@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:22:48 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>

>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:42:13 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0800, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:01:28 -0500, Jim999 <iwantnomail@nowhere.com>

>>>>wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:52:26 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>Jim999 wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:44:22 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net>

>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>January 11, 2008

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>17 States Stuck in License Showdown

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why do liberals oppose secure IDs?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>I don't want to be a bean.

>>>>>

>>>>> You already are, if you have a SSAN. So why not make it

>>>>>secure? You like identity theft?

>>>>

>>>>You want anybody to know where you are and have been at all times?

>>>>What in the hell do you think the scanners will tell the computers?

>>>

>>> Do you think the govt. has enough people to watch the every

>>>move of over 300,000,000 people in the USA?

>>>

>>>>I'm amazed that any true Conservative would even think that such a

>>>>plan is not just another governmental attempt at worming its way into

>>>>everyone's life in the name of security. The one thing that makes me

>>>>feel a little better is that government - any non-totaliarian

>>>>government that is - will botch the entire operation. Especially one

>>>>that doesn't pay its phone bill and so is cut off in the middle of an

>>>>investigation. Lastly - whatever happened to the states' powers vs.

>>>>the Feds. This entire idea reeks of fascism and statism.

>>>>

>>>>WB Yeats

>>>

>>> I'm for a chip in everyone from birth. Then, if anything

>>>happens, computer records can be assessed.

>>> For example, if there is a bank robbery, it would be possible

>>>to tell who all was at the bank at that time. You think that might

>>>cut down on bank robberies?

>>

>>Then you belong residing in some totalitarian system. Although if you

>>wait a few decades the US just might be one.

>>

> Oh, so you're in favor of crime. My plan would virtually

> eliminate it. A safe society for a change.

I was just passing by soc.veterans and noticed this. The "criminal mind"

does not seem to be deterred by common sense. "Chipping" everyone might

make it easier to follow the trail, but "stupid criminal tricks" will still

abound because the stupid person who holds up a bank is, after all, stupid.

Witness the mastermind who wrote his hold up note on the back of a used

envelope, which when turned over showed an address - his! Or the genius

who wanted all of a teller's money drawer, and when she said she needed

identification, he showed his driver's license. Or the terrorist who set

off a bomb, in a rental van, then went back to get his deposit back.

"Chipping" might make it easier to track the perp, but there seems no way to

stop stupid thinking, ahead of time.

January 14, 2008