New National ID System

[USFREEDOM911]

and you're obviously someone who hates constitutional rights as well as the letter of the law. it's all about the 'feels' with you liberals, isn't it?

Say what you want; but it is you who believes that you are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority.

"DER - I'm not driving, I'm "travelling"". LOL

 

[CFM]

I oppose things that tread on the constitutional rights of we the people. why do you hate constitutional rights?



since my wife is medically disabled, she can't drive, but I appreciate your heartfelt concern over her health. thank you.

Yet you don't oppose a drunk driver killing an innocent person? Got it.

I don't give a shit about her health. The sooner it gets worse the better.

 

[CFM]

and you're obviously someone who hates constitutional rights as well as the letter of the law. it's all about the 'feels' with you liberals, isn't it?

It's you that has no problem with innocent people being killed so drunkards can get behind the wheel of a car.

 

[CFM]

Say what you want; but it is you who believes that you are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority.

"DER - I'm not driving, I'm "travelling"". LOL

He thinks drunk drivers have a right to be on the road and law enforcement shouldn't tell them otherwise. His answer is let's wait until the drunkard kills an innocent person before we address the rights of that innocent person.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Say what you want; but it is you who believes that you are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority.

"DER - I'm not driving, I'm "travelling"". LOL

acting and operating within the constitutional framework of my rights is not believing i'm beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority. it's law enforcement authority acting outside of their constitutional power that is the issue. but you can't see that because you're all for cop power and police state stuff. ain't ya?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yet you don't oppose a drunk driver killing an innocent person? Got it.

and this is why you look like a stupid fucking dipshit here. you still refuse to understand the context of what i said.......which is why you throw away constitutional rights so you can feel safe, liberal.

I don't give a shit about her health. The sooner it gets worse the better.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He thinks drunk drivers have a right to be on the road and law enforcement shouldn't tell them otherwise. His answer is let's wait until the drunkard kills an innocent person before we address the rights of that innocent person.

so you DO believe that people have a right to FEEL safe, don't ya, liberal?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

acting and operating within the constitutional framework of my rights is not believing i'm beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority. it's law enforcement authority acting outside of their constitutional power that is the issue. but you can't see that because you're all for cop power and police state stuff. ain't ya?

[translation]"DER - I'm not driving, I'm "travelling"".[/translation] LOL

 

[SmarterthanYou]

[translation]"DER - I'm not driving, I'm "travelling"".[/translation] LOL

eh, whatever lets you sleep at night, slave. give uncle sam a kiss before you blow him.

 

[iewitness]

right on schedule; then the non compliant must be eliminated; then the dreams of the damned come true... right on schedule. no national id system is necessary for fulfillment of the revelation of Yeshua Ha Meshiach [Jesus Christ]

 

[USFREEDOM911]

eh, whatever lets you sleep at night, slave. give uncle sam a kiss before you blow him.

Did you find your "strawman" yet?? LOL

 

[CFM]

and this is why you look like a stupid fucking dipshit here. you still refuse to understand the context of what i said.......which is why you throw away constitutional rights so you can feel safe, liberal.

I know what you said. You made it clear you support people driving drunk only dealing with them AFTER they harm or kill someone else.


It's not about hate. It's about not giving a shit about someone that isn't worth giving a shit about.

 

[CFM]

so you DO believe that people have a right to FEEL safe, don't ya, liberal?

So you DO believe that the only time a drunk driver should be dealt with is AFTER they killed an innocent person?

People have a right not to be subjected to the others violating their rights. Drunk drivers don't have a right to kill other people because you support them driving drunk. Either you believe someone should be able to drive drunk or you don't and it's clear you believe they do.

 

[Ralph]

For the Civil Libertarian folks does this cross the line from security to gov't overreach?



Policy Analysis No. 831


The New National ID Systems


Americans have long rejected a national ID, but many U.S. state governments are quietly developing national ID systems in a variety of forms. One is the uniform identity card system envisioned by the REAL ID Act. That federal law, passed in 2005, seeks to subject state drivers’ licensing to federal data collection and information-sharing standards that will facilitate identification and tracking.

State promotion of the E-Verify background check system, which is intended to control the employment of illegal immigrants, is another path to a national ID. Successful implementation of E-Verify will require a national ID, and some states are already sharing driver data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security so that it can be used in federally administered worker background checks.

Less well known are several other programs poised to produce the same results as a national ID without the requirement of an identity card or other formalities.

These developments position states and the federal government to make once-ordinary behavior like driving on city streets and strolling the sidewalks of American towns into recordkeeping events for an overly attentive state. They compose what might be called the new national ID.

This paper summarizes the stances of each of the 50 states on various ID systems, including REAL ID, E-Verify, facial recognition, and license-plate scanning.

Together, those technologies—along with other initiatives orchestrated at the federal level—are the leading edge of a national identification and tracking infrastructure.

Officials and citizens in every American state should review their states’ identification, data collection, and data retention policies. The privacy and liberty of all Americans are threatened by such increasingly widespread surveillance systems.

Continue to full version


https://www.cato.org/publications/p...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Strange that you would call having to ID your citizenship as a (wink, wink) civil liberty concern....but attempt to call the unmasking of a few top level elite DOJ public employees who unconstitutionally used the DOJ to spy on US citizens and political opponents UNPATRIOTIC.

Things that make you go HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! Lets see if we have this straight. Its a civil liberty violation to demand that all US citizens be properly ID'd as actual US CITIZENS before being allowed to access to tax payer funded privileges such as driving, education, welfare...etc., but its not a civil liberty concern when the DNC uses the DOJ as a political weapon? That about sum it up? Anything that robs the DNC of power and wealth is considered a violation of both civil rights and patriotism?

Explain just how these illogical and conflicting positions playout in the mind of someone(self professed) to be much smarter than the knuckle dragging conservatives?

The same question for your continued support of violent left wing groups such as Black Lives Matter (a supposed attack on police departments all across the nation).....yet you attack anyone that attempts to actually unmask an actual abuse of police power and authority (the OIC investigation and release of the fake documents used to game the FISA courts) as being UNPATRIOTIC and a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

And then your position on violent groups like "Antifa"......the left supports violence in order to crush the right of Free Speech....on one hand....yet, here you are feigning concern about the civil liberties of ILLEGAL (law breaking) non-citizens? Come on! Just where are you driving today, which lane.....left, right, or the center?

Personally I need some dramamine just to read this shit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you DO believe that the only time a drunk driver should be dealt with is AFTER they killed an innocent person?

People have a right not to be subjected to the others violating their rights. Drunk drivers don't have a right to kill other people because you support them driving drunk. Either you believe someone should be able to drive drunk or you don't and it's clear you believe they do.

prior restraint. lets ban guns because people have a right to not be shot. that work for you, liberal?

 

[CFM]

prior restraint. lets ban guns because people have a right to not be shot. that work for you, liberal?

Owning guns is legal. Shooting them is not. Drinking, if you're of age, is legal. Driving drunk and killing people is not.

It's a shame you don't understand the difference.

Thanks for proving that my claims you believe people should be able to drive drunk and it only be addressed after they've killed an INNOCENT person are true. Are you aware that INNOCENT person has s right to life?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Owning guns is legal. Shooting them is not.

so you can own as many guns as you want, but shooting them is a crime. do you even see how fucking stupid you sound?

Thanks for proving that my claims you believe people should be able to drive drunk and it only be addressed after they've killed an INNOCENT person are true. Are you aware that INNOCENT person has s right to life?

yep, you're a liberal. just embrace it, dumbass.

 

[Gotcha68]

Typical Liberal
Shut the fuck up.

At this point in time, what is required is a pushback against privacy invasions, not quiet approval.

And what are you going to be doing as your part in the push back? Let us know so we can follow your lead.

 

[Gotcha68]

Your opinion has no basis in fact. Mine does.

Is there anyone else on this forum who behaves as if every opinion he has is superior to any opinion anyone else has besides you? How do you carry that massive ego around without a neck brace?

 

[Gotcha68]

As an adult, I tell it like it is. That you can understand that proves you're either too old to care or your advanced age has caused your mind to function at a slower pace.

Clearly you have "adult" confused with being of a certain age because your replies are childish and petulant. Nothing adult like about them.