I wonder how they truly identify the people who don't want photos on their ID cards...

I guess your gonna have to. (Land of the free falling............)

Illinois sold out then. A month ago, they were saying that we wouldn't be getting the Real ID. Dammit. >:(

i cant believe they're actually going forward with that. fudge, man, people should be screaming in the streets, i guess not enough people know the ramifications of this.

Ok, I can't figure that site out.  Is it saying Real ID requirements are a picture and barcode?  That site didn't explain it very well.  Are we all going to have to get new ID's even though my state already has picture and barcode.  Somebody find me a "Real ID for Dummies" book, please. ;D

we've already let this stuff go too far. i'm already pissed i have a barcode on my driver's license and what's that thing in my passport? nowadays every time i use my passport they swipe it through this thing. people should have little electronic tags on them like lab animals. burns me up.

This is one of my pet peeves. I really hate it when they use drivers' licenses as ID cards-they are NOT ID cards-they give a person the privilege to drive a car. I have an ID card-issued by the U.S. Government. It has my photo, and my age. I am talking about my military retired ID card. When we fly, THAT is the card I use-not my driver's license. Are they going to stop me from flying because they are NOT going to accept a government issued ID card? I was refused from opening a bank account, from writing a check, and a few other things because they wanted a driver's license. It really PISSES me off!!!!



Ok, rant over.



Cat

Scream in the streets? I could scream on the streets, but it would just go down on my permanent record.  When they run that barcode at the airport, the DHS officer will say, "Check it out, Al, looks like we got ourselves a screamer.  Kid, I want you to go and sit on that bench where it says Group W..."


The police state is here and we're all f**ked. 
:(

WWNWD? (what would naomi wolf do?)

Scream in the streets? I could scream on the streets, but it would just go down on my permanent record.  When they run that barcode at the airport, the DHS officer will say, "Check it out, Al, looks like we got ourselves a screamer.  Kid, I want you to go and sit on that bench where it says Group W..."


The police state is here and we're all f**ked. 
:(



Group W isn't for screamers. Group W is where they send you when you throw a bunch a garbage down a hill because the dump was close on Thanksgiving-with all the father rapers and mother stabbers.  ;)



Cat

Group W isn't for screamers. Group W is where they send you when you throw a bunch a garbage down a hill because the dump was close on Thanksgiving-with all the father rapers and mother stabbers.  ;)



Cat

I started calling the Supreme Court the Group Dubya Bench, but too few get the joke anymore!
:-\\

I think that's horsesheesh. It isn't your everyday citizen that poses a threat to security, they are using this as an excuse to invade the privacy and anonymity of everyday citizens. Your real criminals and terrorists will only find a way to wiggle their way through the cracks.

(I think I just used the anti-gun control argument, lol). 

I think that's horsesheesh. It isn't your everyday citizen that poses a threat to security, they are using this as an excuse to invade the privacy and anonymity of everyday citizens. Your real criminals and terrorists will only find a way to wiggle their way through the cracks.

(I think I just used the anti-gun control argument, lol).   

Well, yeah, you have the right to bear arms...and nothing else.

Interesting...  A Republican administration passed this damn thing, and yet, the Red States seem most leary of it, for the most part.

Interesting...  A Republican administration passed this damn thing, and yet, the Red States seem most leary of it, for the most part.
hell, that's a good point.

i wonder if the difference might have to do with that it's the local governments doing this, not the people. i live in virginia, a rather republican state, but the republican government here is actually very regulatory and intrusive and heavily into taxes.

see, think of it this way: i read a poll that something like 1 in 4 everyday people trusts the government these days. so among the everyday schlubbs like us just about no one actually wants this realID fluff. and it doesn't matter if youre red, blue, green or purple. but among elected politicians the interpretation of realID as a way of controlling the people just isn't going to be out there, you're really not going to hear that. that's a position regular people would adopt about government, not a perspective an elected official (with a few rare exceptions) would adopt about government itself. among elected politicians the assumption is doubtless that this is a security measure meant to facilitate the war on terror.

so... in conservative states the politicians see an opportunity to vote this down, appeal to their anti-government 2nd-amendment base. whereas in democratic states they see this as mostly a minor procedural thing that gives them an opportunity to look tough on security. the republican position has been we have to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here, and enhancing domestic security measures, from that point of view, amounts to a kind of admission of defeat. if you follow me. but on the democratic side (or the demoncrappic side... oh lterhume! where are you?  ;D ) they're eager to look tough on terror without actually supporting the war on terror, because by and large they actually dont dig the war on terror but still feel as though they have to look like they do.

because they, the demoncraps in office, probably see this as a mostly meaningless procedural thing rather than a threat to liberty like a lot of actual regular people do, they see this as something they can support and get a few crossover votes without there being any consequences.

there. a bit more convoluted than i was trying for but that's my theory.

Interesting...  A Republican administration passed this damn thing, and yet, the Red States seem most leary of it, for the most part.


I have a saying, careful what you wish for...you might get it up your ass.
8)

hell, that's a good point.

i wonder if the difference might have to do with that it's the local governments doing this, not the people. i live in virginia, a rather republican state, but the republican government here is actually very regulatory and intrusive and heavily into taxes.

see, think of it this way: i read a poll that something like 1 in 4 everyday people trusts the government these days. so among the everyday schlubbs like us just about no one actually wants this realID fluff. and it doesn't matter if youre red, blue, green or purple. but among elected politicians the interpretation of realID as a way of controlling the people just isn't going to be out there, you're really not going to hear that. that's a position regular people would adopt about government, not a perspective an elected official (with a few rare exceptions) would adopt about government itself. among elected politicians the assumption is doubtless that this is a security measure meant to facilitate the war on terror.

so... in conservative states the politicians see an opportunity to vote this down, appeal to their anti-government 2nd-amendment base. whereas in democratic states they see this as mostly a minor procedural thing that gives them an opportunity to look tough on security. the republican position has been we have to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here, and enhancing domestic security measures, from that point of view, amounts to a kind of admission of defeat. if you follow me. but on the democratic side (or the demoncrappic side... oh lterhume! where are you?  ;D ) they're eager to look tough on terror without actually supporting the war on terror, because by and large they actually dont dig the war on terror but still feel as though they have to look like they do.

because they, the demoncraps in office, probably see this as a mostly meaningless procedural thing rather than a threat to liberty like a lot of actual regular people do, they see this as something they can support and get a few crossover votes without there being any consequences.

there. a bit more convoluted than i was trying for but that's my theory.


A very good theory, I might add....

I sense you have a thorough distaste for both parties and an appreciation for liberty....  Perhaps you are more Libertarian than you realize.

Granted, I find myself in a weird position where I sort of agree with this national ID card but still distrust government in most respects.

I'll put it this way...  I'd be a lot less supportive of this card if we didn't have such a problem with illegal immigrants.

REAL ID is an absolutely terrible idea.  The fact that it was attached to a bill providing Indonesian tsunami relief, and not offered as a stand alone bill, is proof enough of how terrible it is.  I doubt REAL ID would've been passed on its own, so they attached it to the tsunami relief bill, ensuring that any politician who didn't vote for it was committing political suicide, a dirty trick that is all too common in Washington.

By the way, I was looking through the various states on that page to see their stances on REAL ID.  Almost every state that is implementing it has asked for an extension with some questioning whether they will actually comply in the end (including my home state of Arizona).  Hopefully resistance on the part of the states can stop REAL ID.  I mean, if you get enough states not implementing it, perhaps we can kill off REAL ID.  I sadly doubt it though.  Most likely, the states that don't implement REAL ID will have to go through all the negative consequences associated with it and the people of the states will clamor for REAL ID to allow them to fly and all that stuff.  The fact that people will demand REAL ID isn't something I'm comfortable with, but lets face it, Americans would rather give away part of their freedom than put up with no longer being able to fly.

I think that's horsesheesh. It isn't your everyday citizen that poses a threat to security, they are using this as an excuse to invade the privacy and anonymity of everyday citizens. Your real criminals and terrorists will only find a way to wiggle their way through the cracks.Exactly,thats all this is!!

A very good theory, I might add....

I sense you have a thorough distaste for both parties and an appreciation for liberty....  Perhaps you are more Libertarian than you realize.

Granted, I find myself in a weird position where I sort of agree with this national ID card but still distrust government in most respects.

I'll put it this way...  I'd be a lot less supportive of this card if we didn't have such a problem with illegal immigrants.
i tend to like libertarians on a personal level but i think they lose the plot when they see corporations and the government as being in an adversarial relationship. would it were true but in fact they seem to cooperate and collude and exchange executives and shareholders for public office so readily they can scarcely be thought of as independent institutions. i also appreciate their disdain for the federal government as it's currently being practiced but dont think much of their aversion to it in theory. they seem to imagine that we're still living in a 19th century frontier state but i think it's naive, frankly, to think that a country of 300 million people and unimaginable wealth and complexity can be managed effectively and humanely on the local level. it's too provincial by half and seems to indicate a mindset of someone who doesn't really understand america's breadth and scale. i think that's why so many libertarians come from rural areas. not to be snobbish on rural folks in any way, it's just i think their worldview is colored by their specific circumstances and they see america as smaller and simpler than it is.

The part of me that is Libertarian is mostly a supporter of states' rights.  You're correct that America is very complex, but I think state governments handle things better than the feds in most respects.

United we stand, divided we fall.

That's why corporatists (and their libertarian dupes) prefer:

State control to federal control,
Local control to state control,
and hate labor unions. 

You will meet libertarians who own million dollar homes BUT you will not meet a libertarian who owns a million dollar home and is against residential zoning codes at the same time.

Small government where it serves my self interests.
Big government where it serves my self interests.

I'm really impressed with the Missouri state legislature.

I have no idea why your map say's 'possible' because we passed legislation saying it was illegal for this to be made a law in Missouri.

I'm really impressed with the Missouri state legislature.

I have no idea why your map say's 'possible' because we passed legislation saying it was illegal for this to be made a law in Missouri.


PA is planning on legislation to block it, claiming it's an unfair burden on the state.

I'm really impressed with the Missouri state legislature.

I have no idea why your map say's 'possible' because we passed legislation saying it was illegal for this to be made a law in Missouri.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure Illinois isn't having it either. I'm not sure what's up with that map because I know there were ten states that were opposing it, and Missouri and Illinois were two of them.

United we stand, divided we fall.

That's why corporatists (and their libertarian dupes) prefer:

State control to federal control,
Local control to state control,
and hate labor unions. 

You will meet libertarians who own million dollar homes BUT you will not meet a libertarian who owns a million dollar home and is against residential zoning codes at the same time.

Small government where it serves my self interests.
Big government where it serves my self interests.


Those last 2 sentences could also apply to Democrats and Republicans.  On the Democrat side, they prefer big government in the restriction of gun rights but small government when it comes to fighting this Real ID proposal.  On the Republican side, they prefer big government when it comes to the military but small government when it comes social programs.

Everyone's a hypocrite to a certain degree, but my argument is that the proof that big government is not the answer can be most accurately shown in the mess that Social Security has become.  A state plan for unemployment benefits would be far more efficient and cost-effective than the current SS system.

Those last 2 sentences could also apply to Democrats and Republicans.  On the Democrat side, they prefer big government in the restriction of gun rights but small government when it comes to fighting this Real ID proposal.  On the Republican side, they prefer big government when it comes to the military but small government when it comes social programs.
Absolutely.  I like Denmark.  They've decided sex is a human right, so they're subsidizing hookers for guys who can't get l@id.  Dig it!
:-*

Everyone's a hypocrite to a certain degree, but my argument is that the proof that big government is not the answer can be most accurately shown in the mess that Social Security has become.  A state plan for unemployment benefits would be far more efficient and cost-effective than the current SS system.


Great.  If you're old and poor in New York you get a social security check.  If you're old and poor in Alabama you get a plate of
fatbacks 'n' grits after the sermon. 
::)

Those last 2 sentences could also apply to Democrats and Republicans.  On the Democrat side, they prefer big government in the restriction of gun rights but small government when it comes to fighting this Real ID proposal.  On the Republican side, they prefer big government when it comes to the military but small government when it comes social programs.

Everyone's a hypocrite to a certain degree, but my argument is that the proof that big government is not the answer can be most accurately shown in the mess that Social Security has become.  A state plan for unemployment benefits would be far more efficient and cost-effective than the current SS system.



You don't know much about Social Security do you?  How do you suggest the Government deal with disabled citizens?  How are they to live.  In the "olden" days family members would take care of them and see to their needs.  Most families don't do that type of thing anymore.  Institutionalization is not the answer because the government ends up heavily subsidizing them too.

Everyone's a hypocrite to a certain degree, but my argument is that the proof that big government is not the answer can be most accurately shown in the mess that Social Security has become.  A state plan for unemployment benefits would be far more efficient and cost-effective than the current SS system.



Social Security and unemployment benefits are two seperate things.  Each state administers its own program and has different regulations as to the distribution of unemployment benefits. Social Security is administered by the feds and is therefore uniform.

You don't know much about Social Security do you?  How do you suggest the Government deal with disabled citizens?  How are they to live.  In the "olden" days family members would take care of them and see to their needs.  Most families don't do that type of thing anymore.  Institutionalization is not the answer because the government ends up heavily subsidizing them too.

Let's not forget in the "olden days" there were a lot of people who had no family owing to migration, death, or never having been married.  There were also lots of poor families who couldn't afford to take care of their ill or aged; and, unfortunately, just like today, a lot of families so loathed one another it overrode all exigencies of health and security!

Republicans talk like "family" is the answer to everything, but you can't legislate functionality. 

Let's not forget in the "olden days" there were a lot of people who had no family owing to migration, death, or never having been married.  There were also lots of poor families who couldn't afford to take care of their ill or aged; and, unfortunately, just like today, a lot of families so loathed one another it overrode all exigencies of health and security!

Republicans talk like "family" is the answer to everything, but you can't legislate functionality. 


Are you telling us that we've become "spoiled" by the Government.  You are correct in saying that you can't legislate functionality.  At least thing like SSI and SSDI give people a fighting chance to survive.  It would seem however that some people would prefer that Charity organizations take care of the disabled and people with no form of assistance than raise their taxes.  Funny some of these people are also Pro-Life.  They just don't give a crap about the quality of life. (Other than their own)

Are you telling us that we've become "spoiled" by the Government.  You are correct in saying that you can't legislate functionality.  At least thing like SSI and SSDI give people a fighting chance to survive.  It would seem however that some people would prefer that Charity organizations take care of the disabled and people with no form of assistance than raise their taxes.  Funny some of these people are also Pro-Life.  They just don't give a crap about the quality of life. (Other than their own)

No, not spoiled, leave that to Neil Boortz and those clowns who say if only we gave the rich a few more tax cuts they might be nice and give it all to "charity," which we know they won't. 

Of course SS is not charity.  SSDI should not be charity either.  I always hear people say so-and-so on disability could get a job.  However, the minute you get a job, they cut your benefits, so even if you could do some kind of work, though not enough to make a living, you don't because you get penalized. 

No, not spoiled, leave that to Neil Boortz and those clowns who say if only we gave the rich a few more tax cuts they might be nice and give it all to "charity," which we know they won't. 

Of course SS is not charity.  SSDI should not be charity either.  I always hear people say so-and-so on disability could get a job.  However, the minute you get a job, they cut your benefits, so even if you could do some kind of work, though not enough to make a living, you don't because you get penalized. 


The concept of the rich giving away money is highly overrated.  It does happen but most would rather either buy yachts or give it to some University that doesn't need it.  Actually if you get a job and you receive disability you have a 9 month grace period where you still receive benefits.  However with SSI if you find a small job they cut you right away.  It's not the best system, but it could have gotten worse if Republicans could have gotten their way and privatized it.

The concept of the rich giving away money is highly overrated.  It does happen but most would rather either buy yachts or give it to some University that doesn't need it.  Actually if you get a job and you receive disability you have a 9 month grace period where you still receive benefits.  However with SSI if you find a small job they cut you right away.  It's not the best system, but it could have gotten worse if Republicans could have gotten their way and privatized it.

Since Reagan got in our government has been determined to give the most help to those who need it least!
::)