quote:

ORIGINAL: sfgrrl

Perhaps you should try to reply the things I actually said, and not the things you believe that I said. That might increase my estimation of your intelligence a smidgen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

That's because you didn't SAY anything.

quote:

You simply indicated how you believe SJ's original statement should be interpreted (along with some insults), and then didn't even say whether you agree with it; you just added a quote from Adolf Hitler, as though that were enough to convey your argument for you.

quote:

If you think you're being misunderstood, the thing to do is explain more clearly what you mean--not to insult other people's intelligence.

quote:

To use databases that track your internet IDs, websites, emails, credit card #s, shopping trends, religious denomination, etc., I most wholeheartedly disagree with. I will continue to check this one out and I appreciate the references., (Although the Cato Institute does seem to be somewhat liberally biased, but I'm researching their sources too.)

quote:


The argument I made regarding a standardized ID is relevent, as it was pointed out earlier that all except one of the 9/11 hijackers used a drivers licence as a form of ID. If we had the standardized ID for US citizens, perhaps things would have been different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Some great posts on a very important subject!

I'd just like to add my two cents......


The National ID card would be the ''Death Star'' for this country and all civil libertarians.
Essentially what it would do is almost act like an internal passport within our country. It could virtually stop you from traveling within the US. Not to mention, it's very obvious that it's the next logical step towards a cashless society.
And I might add....I think that's the last thing we all want!

The Globalists that are pushing this idea / program are using some of the most brilliant PR people and social engineers that have ever been available to any organization.

Just like with the war,potential supporters of the national ID card theme are heavily encouraged to rely on their emotions, rather than logic and reasoning.



- The Ranger

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfgrrl

I thought I made my argument quite clear. I just wasn't arguing what you think I was or perhaps what you wanted me to. Like you, I would imagine, I haven't done a side by side analysis of the pre-WWII and Brady laws, so I can't say with any degree of certainty that the two are verbatim. However, from what I have read in passing, they do bear some similarity.

quote:


Remember, I'm talking about the GUN laws here, so don't bring up yellow triangles and driving on the right hand side of the road again.

quote:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

• The Englishmen who felt that the government had no business sticking their nose (taxing) every contract led them to rebel. We call them our “Founding Fathers” now.
  
  
• The concept of “One Nation” (…the United States is… vs …the United States are…) was born of the histories written by the victor after the southern states very legally seceded from the United States over trade issues (I know, I know, the “trade” was, in part, in human beings). We call this the American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, for those south of the M-D Line).
  
  
• The entire concept of racial classifications (Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) was developed barely two centuries ago, as much an outgrowth of Western societies mania to classify everything. It is now immortalized in laws both for and against the preferential differentiation of the classified people.
  
  
• Social Security was vilified as the same sort of national ID system that is the subject of this post. There are some that still believe that way, apparently.
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You know, you STILL haven't stated a clear argument.

quote:

That's not an argument. "Some similarity"? What kind of similarity? A relevant similarity? An irrelevant similarity? And what is the consequence of that alleged similarity? Germany today is "similar" to Hitler's Germany in many profound respects, yet it hardly follows that Germany is still a Nazi state. You've got to say more about what the similarity is and what it means. Otherwise you're not really saying anything at all.

quote:

Yellow stars, not yellow triangles. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about traffic laws, but you don't seem to understand why they're relevant.

quote:

Our traffic laws are a lot more similar to Nazi traffic laws than our gun-control laws are to Nazi gun-control laws.

quote:

(Read about them if you don't believe me; in fact, I'd prefer a discussion that refers to real documents.) Since you seem to agree that we're not modeling ourselves on Nazis when we drive on the right side of the road, I don't understand why you don't appreciate the consequence of that insight, namely, that unqualified "similarity" is a useless criterion in arguments like this.

quote:

Another thing I don't understand: why does the question of my intelligence keep coming up, both in your posts and in Youtalkingtome's? Even if I'm damned stupid, what I'm saying has to be taken on its own merits. Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? It's not considered persuasive in civilized discourse.

quote:

While I'm at it, since the subject obviously interests me, you mentioned at one point that ordinary Germans were not in any position to defy the Nazi government once it had attained power. That's untrue, and it's the foundation for a particularly pernicious kind of blame-avoidance in post-War Europe.

quote:

Plenty of ordinary Germans did defy the Nazi government, and in fact many people were saved because of the good acts of ordinary citizens. Many of those citizens died for it; many did not. But the fact remains that the majority did not defy the Nazi government; on the contrary, they knew what it stood for and even supported it. Otherwise, how do you explain the million people who came to Heldenplatz and cheered when Hitler walked into Austria? That was more than half the population of Vienna. (There's a revealing play about it by Thomas Bernhard, called Heldenplatz.) They knew what Hitler would bring, and they wanted it.

quote:

Ever heard of Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)? He's the author of these oft-quoted lines:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

quote:

Unlike either of us, he was there, and his conclusion was not that ordinary Germans couldn't have done more. His conclusion was that they simply chose not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfgrrl

I was unaware I had to make a specific argument in order to participate here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

First you said, "I thought I made my argument quite clear"; now it's "I was unaware I had to make a specific argument to participate here."

quote:

So you never had an argument in the first place.

quote:



I'm not afraid of "big government" if it is a responsible government. (Perhaps that is something of an oxymoron, but I hope that someday we can have that again.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Youtalkingtome

One last post in reply to myself because I don't want to pick on any one person.
If you look at some of the posts you will see that someone doesn't like to believe almost any source of info..
Most of the time when someone or a group demands sources and won't take the time to do the work themselves their is a very good reason.
Usually it is to discredit the source because they don't like what the source says.
It has been done on here before.
And it was done to me on here because I wouldn't give a source.
And here is an example of why I didn't.
I work for a government agency and one of my coworkers wrote to the local paper to tell the tax payers how much waste was going on.He only talked about our department and gave his name and job title.They only used his name.Then our superior that is in the public all the time didn't like this because it made him look bad so he wrote to the paper and said that so and so had no clue as to what he was talking about.
So here was a good person doing a good thing for the tax payers and was only talking about what he knew and didn't make up anything.
His good name and credibility were destroyed.
So anyone that has more power can discredit any source.
Since this is the internet power can come in many ways.
So it is best to know someone before giving out sources than can be used against you or the source themselves.
Sincerely Youtalkingtome