please call your congress critters and oppose this.

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

RFID is in it...

...or was in one proposal at all.

BTW Panthera, yes, as a Libertarian who believes in freedom I will not be satisfied with most systems of government. Remember, as lovely as Europe is, as far as I know (and if I am wrong, please do enlighten me) there are NOT constitutions that enshrine limitations on government power based on natural rights, as ours does. Instead, there are privileges that exist at the whim of the government in power.

But I have a bigger question for all of you: Why do you think such infringement on your natural rights is acceptable? Why do you not care that you're tracked, monitored, and controlled? Do you hate the idea of a non surveillance society that much? Please note that I am NOT being inflammatory but I am genuinely curious. Do you use EZ Pass? If so, why do you not seem to mind that your every entrance/exit onto the highway is stored forever? Do yo have facebook? Why do you not mind personal information being given freely to Facebook forever? I'm GENUINELY curious as I don't understand it.

As for tracking via RFID, it won't require that massive of one - it just requires points of it and you can extrapolate from there. And you might also argue that we already have such a massive network -- just modify rfid chips to be 'pinged' by cell towers and there you have it.

And of course with linked databases and an absolute identity verification - not to mention a centralized health database which was in the Obamacare bill - you could be denied treatments and coverage for any type of health condition if you were 'caught' eating a twinkie, a chocolate bar, or whatever...because it is against the will of the State that you do such unhealthy things. Paranoid? I think not.
 
"Peter, I'm a little surprised..."

The problem in AZ isn't so much illegal immigration, but more of a drug and violent crime problem. Most illegals sneak over and then look for work. If that was the case, it would be SNAFU. But on the AZ border, it is a drug trafficking haven. The murder of the rancher brought it to a head. So the people of AZ have had enough and the legislators reacted. I would venture to guess that the police are at more danger without this bill. Now they have a bit more teeth to nab illegals and turn them over to ICE. Not to mention that the law has something like 70+% approval in AZ and 60+% approval nationwide.

No one is going to have to prove their comings and goings UNLESS there was a law broken to begin with. Kinda like hate (thought) crimes -- you have to break the law FIRST and then prove you are here legally.

I thought I read somewhere earlier today that now the illegals are leaving AZ and moving to other more friendly areas in the country. Nice...
 
You're spot-on about the drug and gang wars going on along the border, it's getting worse by the day. I don't believe that the AZ ID law will solve any of that, it may just exacerbate the trouble and make violence against law enforcement worse.

Our "war on drugs" was lost years ago. That should be a part of the immigration discussion as well if we're ever going to solve the border/smuggling/drug problems that are all related.
 
"Remember, as lovely as Europe is, as far as I know (and if I am wrong, please do enlighten me) there are NOT constitutions that enshrine limitations on government power based on natural rights, as ours does. Instead, there are privileges that exist at the whim of the government in power."

There is one small problem with this thinking. A constitution is good ONLY as long as its honored. Putting it another way, who is more free? A person in a country with no constitution, but a government that (long term) allows freedom? Or a person in a country with a constitution that gives freedom, but has a government that does not honor those promises?

If the wrong people get long term control of the US government, I'm sure we'll see the promises of the US Constitution being broken. I hope this never happens. But--after the Bush years--I can no longer think it's impossible.
 
"Honestly you people are as bad as the Republicans. If it is your boy who says something it is okay..."

Not true, not true! I have a whole list of questions but as I'm probably unable to crash a White House party (like the Salahis (?) who were hopefully sent to Afghanistan in the surge) I quite likely won't get to ask any of them anytime soon.

Check out this guy's podcast, Dan Carlin has a show called Common Sense that is amazing in it's clarity and ability to stay above the partisan political banter and get to the real heart of matters. I wish he had a show every week.

 
Good for Arizona for standing up for its rights and trying to solve a problem that has basically become almost a plague in parts of the state. It's about time Americans said ENOUGH. Personally, I'm sick and friggin tired of others coming to this country and trampling all over its laws, the same laws Americans must abide by. Since when do we owe anyone and everyone citizenship here? Granted, many countries have it far worse than we ever had here, but it's not our job to solve everyone else's problems, and it never has been. That is for their governments to tackle. I have no problem with legal immigration - controlled, regulated and enforced.

We have plenty of our own here to work on, including large numbers who still live below the poverty level in this country. Before we get all high and mighty and try to save the world, let's do for our own first. I know too many seniors who live with the bare minimum, or less, and after a lifetime of hard work, that's truly a damned disgrace.

Now let's hope more states follow Arizona.
 
I agree...

...regarding constitutional government. However, I find Democrats and Republicans to be very dangerous because: If a "D" is in power the "D" folks don't object when he or she does somethign wrong, and if an "R" is in power the "R" folks don't object when he or she does something wrong.

Clinton basically sold the country out to Red China, transferring nuclear secrets among other things. No Democrat that I know objected. Bush and Obama BOTH have gutted the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot act and nobody from either party fusses.

I don't understand.

Now, as for the war on drugs, spare me. I don't take drugs, I hate drugs, I don't drink more than 6-8 drinks PER YEAR, and having said that, LEGALIZE the stuff. As with booze, if you want to have a drugging age, fine, but adults are adults and therefore SHOULD BE free to be citizens, not serfs like they are now.

I also agree that internal investment and development are seriously needed in the USA. Just make it INVESTMENT rather than shoveling money to your friends like Obama and the Democrat congress and senate have done since January, 2007. (NOT THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE ANY BETTER! I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT.)
 
"If a 'D' is in power the 'D' folks don't object when he or she does somethign wrong, and if an 'R' is in power the 'R' folks don't object when he or she does something wrong."

I can't argue, Hunter. It seems like a pretty accurate observation.

"Now, as for the war on drugs, spare me. I don't take drugs, I hate drugs, I don't drink more than 6-8 drinks PER YEAR, and having said that, LEGALIZE the stuff. As with booze, if you want to have a drugging age, fine, but adults are adults and therefore SHOULD BE free to be citizens, not serfs like they are now."

I can't argue with this, either.

Even with the laws, I have never been able to understand mandatory drug testing at many companies. I suppose in some cases it could be argued to be a safety issue...although alcohol use/abuse can create safety issues too. Then, for many jobs, it really doesn't matter. My feeling is if the person doesn't do the job well enough--regardless of drug status--fire him or her. If he does a great job, then who really cares?

The idea of age restrictions for drugs like alcohol makes me wonder--again--why do we have a drinking age of 21 when most of the rest of the world gets by just fine with 18 or 19? Or even less? I was in high school during the time the ages were being bumped up, and the big claim was that it was to fight drunk driving. "Well," I asked my social studies teacher, "why don't they just increase penalties on DWI convictions?" He thought I had a good point, but thought it would never happen. It might inconvenience a member of Congress at some later date.
 
Hunter

Except for the UK, in Western Europe we have real constitutions.
All are modelled on the French and American to greater or lesser degree.
The German constitution was written with American "guidance" not too far from where I sit back in 1948. It is even harder to modify than is the American constitution and the passages on human rights, including for gays, religious freedom, freedom of expression can not be removed under any circumstances.
The link is worth reading. I'm not exactly in love with Kain, but he makes a valid point from time to time, this is one of those times.
On the EC level, no country may have fewer rights than are mandated, changing those requires roughly the same level of effort as in the US. But those are minimums.

So, I guess your knowledge there is incorrect regarding Western Europe. The East, well, yeah - Poland very nearly didn't make it into the EC because they had to stop torturing gays and imprisoning us.

As others here have said, any constitution is only as good as the people who permit it to be violated.

I understand the anger and frustration of the people who see tens of millions of undocumented people in their country. I don't, however, understand why someone thinks Gauleiterin Brewer's solution to the problem is constitutional.

It isn't - it requires that gen-u-whine, 100% Christian, true-blue republican voters identify themselves to whatever official decides to ask. The only criteria? That their skin be dark. Racial profiling is exactly what the Nazis used and is a major step down the road to a fascist theocracy.

Again, I really don't understand why the Americans don't protect their borders unless, of course, it is in the interests of big business to have slave labor? In the interest of the mafia and bought-off politicians to have illegal drug trade going?

Oh, no, certainly not. How ever could I think such a thing?

Anybody who thinks that politicians who only violate the human rights and dignity of "illegal aliens" will respect their rights is smoking something pretty strong. This is where I am 100% in agreement with you, Hunter. Good luck explaining it to people who have no knowledge of, no awareness of and no desire to learn that their "American" rights are hanging right now by a thread.[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-03:44]

 
Oh, and for those who say:

"Another law must be violated first before the cops can ask for your papers..."
In Arizona, those "other laws" include:
Proper lawn care.
Being at a garage sale or flea market or bake sale or thrift sale or church bazaar or charity table
 
"Again, I really don't understand why the Americans don't protect their borders unless, of course, it is in the interests of big business to have slave labor? In the interest of the mafia and bought-off politicians to have illegal drug trade going?"

Interesting question, Keven. I don't have an answer, and your speculations strike me as valid as any. Past these, I have sometimes wondered if some politicians don't like to leave problems unfixed. These problems give them something to use when campaigning for election. If the problem gets fixed, well, what will they do then?
 
Um, find new problems?

Obviously, John, I agree with you (especially about my valid points!).

American politics have always been driven by a deeply polarized, almost schizophrenic division within the country's soul.

The Europeans who founded this country came here for two highly disparate reasons. One group (roughly the Puritans) came here or were forced to come here because they were so extreme in their religious and political views, even the Dutch in Amsterdam couldn't live with them.
(That's saying something, the Dutch are the only people on earth who can get along with the French, English and Germans genuinely and at the same time while disagreeing with all of us on all fundamental matters).
The other side were people seized with a sense of adventure, the desire to find out what's on the other side of the mountain because, well, because it's on the other side of the mountain. They wanted to make better lives for themselves and they weren't afraid to take calculated risks for gain. Not unfounded risks, risks which they thought were at least 50:50.
That is important.

Today, we have basically three groups: Those who wish to impose their standards on the rest of us - the conservatives, driven by racism and christianism.
The second group is made up of those who are more or less committed to "live as you will, let me live as I will" and the very similar "don't tread on me (and I won't tread on you) group.
Roughly, the two make up the libertarians.
The third group are the liberals. We tend to think: Why not improve what can be improved and if an expansion of civil liberties for all means limiting the rights to exploit others for some, no hu-hu.

It is obvious that the conservatives and liberals have no basis to work together, apart from emergencies which threaten them both. Being turned out of office in November is one such existential threat, there are few others. Protecting the country from harm is not, however, one of them.

Libertarians have a natural tendency to align themselves with conservatives because they hate, just plain hate being told what to do. At the same time, there is a biological not a psychological component which needs to be factored into the equation.

Recent MIR studies have shown that there are two basic ways for the brain to react to "the other". A person with a different culture, a religious viewpoint which is widely divergent from one's own: One can be frightened by this at a visceral, atavistic level. Or, one can be challenged by it, also at a visceral, atavistic level.

Conservatives of modern stripe (christianists and the fascists who now rule the Republican party) tend towards being frightened. Libertarians and liberals tend to feel challenged.

Well, this is only how I look at the mess, obviously it's only my opinion. It certainly explains to me why liberal gays like me, though very unhappy campers with the Obama approach to restoring our civil and human rights of: The Eternal Moment of Whenever, still prefer him 1,000x to the Republicans who want to torture us, strip us of our rights whenever they can.

It's a tough situation, any road. Personally, I'd like to see a solution in alignment with the 14th amendment. But then, that's a typical libertarian-liberal response: We are strict constitutionalists, not judicial activists like the Robert's court, which grants international corporations the right to be natural persons in the US and to donate unlimited sums to influence American elections.
 
I should, of course,

add that not all conservatives are racists, christianists and fascists.
Our PeterH. is, for instance, someone who identifies as conservative because of financial reasons. Driven to the wall, I bet he feels absolutely isolated in today's Republican party and shudders at what passes for fiscal policy in conservative circles in the 21st century.
But he's intelligent. That makes him an exception.
 
"American politics have always been driven by a deeply polarized, almost schizophrenic division within the country's soul."

Very, very true!! And still are.
 
Two more new laws from Arizona

The legislators also passed two new laws this week which Gauleiterin Brewer has said she'll sign.
One forbids the teaching of Mexican history or any ethnic studies, including the US from 1858-1892 relevant to Negroes.
Yee-haw.
The second forbids the creation of centaurs.

Not joking, can prove it if asked to cite, er, chapter and verse.

panthera++5-1-2010-06-11-25.jpg
 
2 New Laws from Arizona

Unless I'm missing something, this crosses the line to "absolutely insane."

Sadly, the part I really find insane isn't the law about centaurs. It's the law about teaching other cultures/ethnic groups/history. We are in an era when we need to know MORE about other cultures. Not LESS.

I guess, though, other cultures and countries don't matter to some, who'd say: "Who cares about Mexico, as long as we can continue benefiting from cheap Mexican labor?"[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-06:48]
 
I think everybody should be microchipped

and their DNA logged in a national data bank. The DNA profile can then be used to determine if they are insurable, employable, prone to mental and other types of illnesses etc. and so on.
 

Similar threads

W
Carrier leaving Indy for Mexico
2
Replies
33
Views
34
washman
W
aquacycle
31/05/2014, a date for your diaries - the UK vacuumland meet up
Replies
0
Views
1
aquacycle
aquacycle
joeekaitis
How to make your own pefectly legal Windows 7 installtion DVD
Replies
0
Views
1
joeekaitis
joeekaitis
richardc1983
ISE Appliances... your opinions please
2
Replies
31
Views
32
chestermikeuk
chestermikeuk
Unimatic1140
An Open Discussion about Copyright, automaticwasher.org/vacuumland and the Internet
2
Replies
31
Views
32
aldspinboy
aldspinboy

Latest posts

Back
Top