digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Ron Paul: REAL ID won't stop terrorism, will violate your rights

house.gov — Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9-11 attacks. In fact, a 1996 bill sought to do exactly what the REAL ID Act does: transform state drivers’ licenses into de facto natio

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gmanNC13, on 10/10/2007, -11/+130brave new world...look at england!
    • JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21I find it amazing, yet not surprising that you got buried for that comment. I dugg your comment.
    • Devrdander, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Except that a national ID in the States is like a Western Europe ID...
    • CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Wasn't Brave New World set in England, mainly?
      • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought it was a Styx album.
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are parallels, yes, but remember that in 1984, England technically did not exist.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2England is where those "evil" surveillance cameras caught the bastards that tried to blow up a bunch of cars and kill a lot of people.
      • plaunie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11984 was...
      • plaunie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21984 was...
      • aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You can take any confiscation of liberty and point out a single situation where it's beneficial to our safety. The real question that should be asked is, "Is this loss of liberty good for the country and its people in the long run?" The answer is decidedly no.
      • Kombaiyashii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6''England is where those "evil" surveillance cameras caught the bastards that tried to blow up a bunch of cars and kill a lot of people.''

        WHAT? I drove past one of those bombs on fleet street on my way to work, no cameras saw that one nor did any cameras catch the others, it was a paramedic who caught the first...Cameras fail conveniently like on 7/7 and when De Mendez was shot and Diana crash and also the pentagon (well, they were put under 'national security'). Surveillance is a one way thing; the people don't get the camera footage when the government is under scrutiny.

        But it’s not the cameras it’s the people that are watching them, how can a rational member of the public like you defend them. Not only are you making a stupid argument but you are taking the most embarrassingly conformist view possible. I just don't get it.
        • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I don't get how you can think something is so wrong without giving me anything concrete other than "lost liberty" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to oppose it. Anyway, I was referencing how the camera system caught the guys, not how it stopped the bombings.
        • vandev3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's funny that we never see these definitive video images of the suspects.
        • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The video was of their license plates. It is entered into a database, which was then searched, and the locations of their cars could be verified. IIRC.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It's interesting to see the replies here. I have a concrete example of this database helping to catch a bad guy. All I see are vague allusions to "confiscation of liberty." How can a camera system that records a public location be such a loss of liberty? Assuming the system is put in place with proper checks and balances, and I don't know the British system well enough to know their checks and balances, all I see is a crime-fighting tool with little impact on the average citizen and no real reduction in liberty or rights in public places.
        • Kombaiyashii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Liberty; you don't know what you've got until it's gone.
      • vandev3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you know a system that has ALL the proper checks and balances then we should all move there.
      • mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0For @tehpwnrate
        Finally, somebody with a sound judgment. Perhaps it would have been better for those people to die instead of being saved by the surveillance system. Then you would probably have +10 diggs instead of -19, but who knows: some people never learn.

        I am starting to think that politicians should ALWAYS lie to people. So much people are completely irrational that it would have been impossible to listed to them.

        The politicians should lie to the people then implement the REAL-ID card anyway. They should not listen to the mob. They should to what is best for their country.

        Those against the REAL ID card would change their mind after other 3000 innocent people would die in terror attacks. Let's NOT wait for them to get smarter.
    • Soniti, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3***** A. Another day, another Ron Paul story. The day I can look at the top ten without seeing a story about this ***** ***** is a good day.

      Weren't his supporters exposed as gaming the system?
      NO MORE RON PAUL STORIES.
      ~Soniti
      • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Its too bad he has more online supporters than any other republican politician huh?
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2No, he doesn't. He just has supporters that have no moral or ethical objection to spamming his name everywhere.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5So by your logic, it's just 2 people volenteering 15,000 times and doing the combined work on 30,000 men?
          If you're sick of Ron Paul stories, stop going to the political section, or at least take it off from your personal frontpage. Sure you won't get the other political stories, but at least you'd have one less thing to bitch about :D
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As Tuco might say, "If you're going to bury, bury- don't talk"!
    • jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"England Prevails" - V for Vendetta
  • nofrak1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+145This is the most important civil liberties issue there is right now. We need to continue to encourage the states to resist Real ID - don't leave it to the Feds!
    • tehcobra, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6The Fed pulls the states strings....
      • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If more states resist then they have less strings to pull.
      • maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You need to understand that states can override Congress, it has been done before. There are 39 states right now that have, or currently are passing legislation to resist the Real ID. Maine and Montana are leading the way.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1If the Federal government really wants to do this there will be nothing that the states can do about it. It's all about funding and who gets it and, more importantly in this case, who doesn't.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So says the paid disinfo spammer. When are you going to have something interesting to say?
          • coviecarbine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is not wrong, the legal drinking age is not mandated by the federal government either, states lose their highway funding if they lower it. It will work the same way for Real ID.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Your point is taken, but I think this is neck-and-neck with warrantless wiretapping and the ability of the gov't to declare anyone an "enemy combatant."

      Actually, there's a lot more that's just as troublesome, which makes it rather hard to have a coherent and all-inclusive "What do we want" chant at protest rallies.
    • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20The response is simple: refuse it. I will not carry this ID, and nobody should. We run this country, don't let the few dictate to the masses.
      • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I take it you don't drive a car?
        • urbal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That is not the point. The point is, the government works for US. WE have the power because without us, government is useless. If everyone says, "No", there is nothing they can do. What are they going to do, FORCE everyone to do it? They can't. The only way they can achieve their goals is when we let them. They have a large percentage of our population duped already and willing give their rights away in the name of "fighting terror". We have a nation of people who either don't care or are brainwashed by the mainstream media they are spoon fed.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3You have a national ID card right now. What do you think your Social Security card is? Grow up, people.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Oh. senior Big Government lover himself praising Soviet style papers. Why am I not surprised you'd have that position Hurl...I mean Herk.
        • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2So you don't think that a social security card is a national ID? In that case, you are a dumbass.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What law says the SSN is an ID? If you think there's a law that says the SSN is a general for of ID then you're the dumbass.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Try getting a bank account without a Social Security Card. Try getting a Passport or a job. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that dense?
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't be the usual idiot that you are Hurl.

            There are no laws saying that banks have to use SSNs or to get a job or passport.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Right. You are, as usual, completely wrong. You have to pay taxes on interest on bank accounts so they need, of course, your Social Security number. Any job requires you to pay income taxes and usually Social Security and other state and local taxes as well. Hence they need your Social Security number. Almost everything you do with the Federal Government requires you to have a Social Security number. Go out tomorrow and apply for a job somewhere. Tell them that you don't have a Social Security number and let us know what happens.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's been that way for fifty years. I'm sure that most of the college students reading this are aware that your social security number is being used for their school ID number. You also need it to get a job or a passport or even to open a bank account. People need to understand that this is just a new form of a very old card.
    • maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3@Herkimer56

      You sir are an idiot! Your SS card does NOT have a tracking device on it! I'm sure most of us don't like being tagged like a dog.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How do you know it doesn't?
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Because it's made of a goddamn sheet of paper that is not covered in plastic. Seriously, it's a flimsy ass peice of paper that if washed will most likely tear and be destroyed. Reverse paranoia only works when it's logically plausable for the paranoia to be real.
        • evaburrito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7and you are discouraged from carrying your ss card in your wallet at all times. anyone with any sense leaves that piece of paper at home to protect themselves from fraud. the Real ID will be required to be kept on your person at all times, and carry all of that delicate personal information including your ss number in a non encrypted rfid chip.

          and don't think for a minute that people weren't outraged when the social security cards were issued. generations have aged and died, and so with them a vast wealth of information and insight.
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I know perfectly well what a Social Security card is printed on. I was just wondering if psycho-boy up there knew for sure.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In other words, you admit that you are lying? How cute.
    • jacobmiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Here's Dr. Paul adressing the issue of civil liberties, including the Real ID and Patriot Act issues:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se9_wCZ2z0
  • Butmac, on 10/10/2007, -9/+135The fact that we are even talking about this as a possibility is terrifying to me
    • MillionsLivio, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Indeed, which is why it is even more important that progress be made to make sure it never happens.
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Why? Many of us already have national identification. We call them U.S. Passports.
      • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14They are talking about using a radio tag in the card to trace people, thats way more than a passport.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Gotcha. That's certainly excessive.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2...but there's no mention of RFID in the article.
          • faskill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Consider the National ID Card as a catalyst. In my state we have driver's licenses. If we wish to leave the country, we have passports. If I wish to enroll in certain programs, I have a social security number. To prove I was born, I have a birth certificate. To access my place of work, I have an ID card w/rf chip. How many forms of ID's do I need?
          • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2RFID is just one name for that sort of thing.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5He states that RFID COULD be included at some point, not that it will be included at some point. Again, Ron Paul is just showing his reactionary idiocy. You can't really expect rational thought from a man that hangs around with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and has been endorsed by Alex Jones, Lew Rockwell and David Duke.
        • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Passports DO have a radio chip in them, at least the new ones. The customs official just scans it; it's a lot easier and more convenient than trying to verify the authenticity in another way.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, didn't those go into effect this year?
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7it's more than a possibility. as i said in a post below, the legislation has already been passed for this. this goes into effect may '08. ... actually i just read it was postponed until dec 09

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
    • alliekins619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I am confused, severely, by this whole REAL ID debate. Why is this a bad thing? As I understand it, it is NOT a national ID card. It is security standards for state identification, which already exists. I live in New York; we have a pretty hard-to-duplicate drivers license thing going on. I have friends all around the country though, and I can honestly say that some of the IDs could be printed with a simple plastic ID printer (Virginia comes to mind). When the federal government needs to know who you are (for visiting secure locations such as the White House or Congress, for taking a federal examination, etc) they don't want to rely on something I could falsify in my basement. Please explain why this is bad. There are no RFID chips, they can't track you, they just want to make sure you are who you say. How does this violate our rights any more than carrying a driver's license does? Please, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to understand.
      • ManOfVirtues, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Well I will happily help you understand
        "As I understand it, it is NOT a national ID card. It is security standards for state identification, which already exists." There is a bit of contradiction in this statement. "National" indicates that it is in fact nation wide, where as state indicates it only exists in your state. This is a NATIONAL ID card. Because the database that contains the information is stored on a federal level and the information stored on it could contain anything from your name, address, SSN, to your allergies, the results of your last cholesterol screening, or when you had your last checkup at the OBGYN (Thanks to the freedom of information act and Patriot Acts respectively).
        "There are no RFID chips, they can't track you." An RFID chip could be added at anytime after the bill is signed (per department of Homeland Security), and they CAN track you. RFID chips can be read at distances of over 400 feet. Put one of these little readers (http://www.iautomate.com/r500sp.html) at every major intersection right next to the stop light. Everytime you pass through that intersection it logs your ID # into a database, and a computer can then calculate where you have been, and where you are going based on AI algarythems. Funny I think I have acctually seen these readers in place here in Omaha.
        "How does this violate our rights any more than carrying a driver's license does?" A drivers license is issued by the state, a state has the right to reject federal laws and mandates, but by doing so its citizens would no longer be allowed to travel outside if their state of residence.

        Did that answer your questions?
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The reason that you don't understand why these people are so upset is because you're not as hopelessly paranoid as they are. Every objection that they raise is either based on exaggeration, disinformation or what they fear may happen in the future. They talk as if their personal information isn't already in databases scattered about all over the country. The information is out there. What we have here is a possible all-in-one card that could be your driver's license, passport, ATM card, Credit Card or whatever other function that you choose for it to have. Of course the government haters, conspiracy theorists and right wing whack jobs see this as a threat to their personal liberties. Ignorant people fear change even when it's for the better. For more information Google "Luddite" and "Anarcho-primitivism".
      • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4FTA:

        One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yes, that was Ron Paul's over-simplified and ignorant comment. By his thinking there is no point in issuing drivers licenses, credit cards, debit cards, social security cards or state ID cards. Try living without them. Why not use this opportunity to replace all of that plastic with one card that can do it all? Anything can be forged but that fact does not make the original worthless. I don't like the fact that I have to carry several different IDs around with me but I do understand the necessity.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The man's spent 15 years in Congress. I think he'll know a bit more about this topic than you do.
      • rex84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I live in Virginia, my driver's license is covered in holograms, I doubt you could make one in your basement. It has 2 bar codes, all my vitals, my "customer number", etc.. I think it has more than enough info.
        • urby86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My friend has a fake Virginia driver's license.
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Smart Dust. Google it.
  • clownguyx, on 10/10/2007, -17/+43I'm saying this issue isn't an important one but it should be noted that this article is dated 05/2005
    • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20If you dont think this is a serious issue I highly incourage you to look up legislators against REAL ID
      • clownguyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I should have proofread my own comment. It's supposed to read "I'm not saying this issue isn't an important one..."
        It is a very important issue. I just thought it was important to note that the letter, while still relevant, is old.
        • almightyzam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Old by only two years. Still very relevant.
        • ManOfVirtues, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2legislation can sit for many years before being voted on, I would consider this new legislation.
    • Daedalus81, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4REAL ID is set to go into effect May 08.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I believe it's been pushed back to sometime in 09. They have too many protesters against it and they want to do more propaganda to get people placated (pacified) for it.
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The only propaganda I've seen has been from reactionary idiots like Alex Jones and his band of acolytes.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2damn...it's hard to digg you up
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1People do it all the time. You'll get used to it. : )
    • Daedalos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I think congress has just rejected a funding bill that didn't give the states enough money. The date was pushed back to '09, but it isn't dead yet. They are starting to realize how unreasonably expensive it will be. I hope Clownguy meant to say "I'm not saying this isn't important." Because it really is.
      • clownguyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What you hoped I would say is what I meant to say. I corrected myself if you dig down through the comments enough. I feel like an ass sounding so ignorant with that comment.
  • lesty420, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5The need for passports to cross the borders on the north and south is hurting trading and tourism. Good luck with protecting yourself from a tactic though
  • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -6/+59So wait... We want to digitize all of our biometrics and stick them on an easy to lose/have stolen card? I wouldn't be surprised if biometrics replaced or at least augmented passwords in the semi-near future. And we want to make copies of that date, destroying one of the key points of the security which is that it would require at least a little ingenuity and sneakiness to steal this kind of information from somebody? Maybe it's me, but this entire thing smells like the first step towards an efficient police state.
    • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Also devices are available that can connect to the RFID chip they want to put in the cards allowing me to steal your identity and everything about you while your enjoying your Wendy's with you none the wiser.
      • urby86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One of my professor's colleagues is currently patenting an active rfid scrambler (it runs on a watch battery). It's just big enough to fit a card into it and can be put in your wallet. There are already passive card holders that weaken the signal.

        However, I can already see a law making the use of these illegal on your REAL ID.
    • falseleftright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, this would be one of the last steps.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Um. The biometrics aren't stored on the card. And there certainly isn't enough information on the card for someone to steal your identity. The government just uses the card to match you to your biometrics, which aren't stored on the card. The biometrics are the real means of authentication, not the card.

      It bothers me that the people criticizing the program are the ones that know the least about how it works.
      • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The biometrics are on the card, what do you think the double bar code is for? Not sure if the information is on there yet but you would need a special scanner to tell.
        • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A hash of the biometrics are on the card. If you know anything about hashes, you should know it's impossible to actually obtain the biometrics from the hash. Take a security class sometime. This is basic Freshman or Sophmore Computer Science stuff.

          The only way for someone to steal your identity with RealID is to take both your biometrics and the hash on the card. And because the biometrics aren't on the card... they'd have to steal you.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Who gives a crap about all that? The fact remains that our government want to keep track of us. We are no longer a free country when the government can track us like this. In a free country it is the People who track the Government, not the other way around.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Who gives a crap about all that?" The last argument of the ignorant.
          • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, herk, it's the argument of the informed. The ignorant only hurl out accusations and insults.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, your identity is actually harder to steal with biometrics. If someone steals you identity now, it is impossible to prove that it wasn't you, but with biometrics it is easy to do that. Only you have you fingerprints, only you have your eyes. If someone ties biometrics to a fake ID they will be different from you, so it is easy to prove that you didn't do it.
      • Narrator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Except for one thing, biometrics are not secrets.
        • Kyan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And one might want to ask when was the last time a government employee (or IRS employee) lost a laptop full of SSN's? I'm sure when they pass this REALID bit, people will suddenly stop losing laptops and stop changing passwords when a nice sounding person on the phone, claiming to be from IT asks them to....
      • lucidguru, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Biometrics aren't very hard to crack... just cut someone's fingers off... and what's going to happen when the biometrics involve retinal scans. I think there was a good scene in Judge Dread with an eyeball on a pen.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What about the scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise gets his eyeballs replaced with someone else's?

          Hey. it's just a thought. :)
  • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/10/2007, -13/+34Right on , Ron!
    • catfish182, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9i have said this before. if you need Ron Paul or ANY politcian to tell you that this shouldnt happen then there is something wrong with you.
      We have to remember that everyone in Washington that is in govt works for the citizens and if we tell them "i dont think so or your fired" and we follow though if they dont they (the govt) will do as we ask.

      We have to hold all of them accountable for these laws and we must allways be on them. Lazyness on our part is not a excuse.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree. Government has always had a voracious appetite for power. It is the People who don't stand up against it and they are the one to blame for not holding those in Government accountable by throwing their asses in prison where they belong. Zero tolerance is what is needed with these criminals pushing this *****.
    • michigander, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Ron Paul is our last chance to save our freedoms from our power hungry government, a government that will not give up any power steals from us. I voted for bush and now I'm regretting it, big time.
  • falseleftright, on 10/10/2007, -8/+74Your papers please.
    • DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No ticket...
    • MikeMigs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"No ticket"
    • sdaf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Ihre papiere, bitte." Classic Medal of Honor :)
    • Fr4nk2012, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We doun need no stinkin batches
    • WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2AUSWEISEN! ... for anyone who transfered flights in Germany. Friendly folks there. Almost as friendly as US Customs.
  • Jesse, on 10/10/2007, -19/+7Thanks, Dr. Obvious
  • purpledrank, on 10/10/2007, -20/+61Another reason I'm voting for Ron Paul..
    • cryptodonkey, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1will not do any good. electoral votes elects the President and Vice President. not some Joe blow off the streets vote.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That doesn't come into play until the general elections. If Ron Paul wins the primaries, then he will be the Republican candidate for the general elections. Most states award the electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote in that state. Even if Paul were to win the state's popular vote as an independent candidate, the electoral votes would still go to him. Just because it's not a direct popular vote doesn't mean that any particular candidate can't get the electoral college votes.
        • cryptodonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it does not determine the winner of the election.
      • borninda818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yeah dude but electoral votes almost always reflect the peoples choice
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not necessarily. A few elections back there was a big to-do about an elector bucking the majority and the SCOTUS ruled they can do WTF they want to do.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Don't forget to bring your ID to the polling place.
  • ZWarren69, on 10/10/2007, -21/+97Ron Paul support is steadily growing in middle TN. I wrote Ron Paul 2008 on my back window, and these guys drove beside me, yesterday, honking, giving the thumbs up, and saying, "Ron Paul YEAH!" His message is spreading.

    -Zach
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15His message has been around for years. The Libertarian party has had these views, long before Ron.
      • Herv3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think it's picking up steam because of the internet, but more importantly it is needed now more than ever.
    • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8Ron isn't a true libertarian. He is a coot who wants to impose his crazy beliefs on others. Its just that most of his views are in line with the constitution and libertarian views. His views on abortion are that it should be banned outright. Whatever your views on the rightness of that subject, banning abortion causes serious social problems. He also uses arguments such as "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." Just because he hasn't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen. He isn't a libertarian, he is a religious nut who is more honest than most other politicians.
      • Ulisses, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6No need to talk about abortion, just look at what he as to say about the separation of church and state, downright insane. Ronald is in favor of letting the staes decide if women should abort but I would love to know if he would like the same to be true of heavy-drug use, for example.
        • jmgregory, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Ron Paul believes the federal "war on drugs" is a total waste and failure. He thinks the federal government should have no say over such matters, which are constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the states. If the states want to legalize or ban marijuana, abortion, or anything else, that's up to them. He is personally against abortion, but does not believe that as president he could or even should attempt to mandate that to the entire country.

          http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21
          http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23
      • madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Uhm, actually he isn't going to "ban abortion outright." He wants the states to decide for themselves. That makes sense, considering abortion should be a LEGISLATIVE issue and not a JUDICIAL issue. So you don't have to worry about him banning abortion.

        God, why do people still care about the abortion issue for ANY candidate? I don't care if they are completely pro-life, no one is going to ban abortion. It just couldn't happen anyways.
        • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2They could, and some states are ruled by religious activist groups. Look at prohibition in the 1920s. The vast majority of Americans did not want that, and didn't think it could happen, but it did. It allowed huge crime organizations to spring up and take a foothold in America.

          If abortion was alive and well in America we wouldn't be seeing any cases of babies being thrown in dumpsters or murdered because they weren't wanted. Religious groups have been so militantly against it that people would rather have a child and kill it than have an abortion in some areas. If you don't fight to keep what you have then you will loose it before you are aware you are fighting to keep it
        • samiringo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0We may not be there-- banning abortion-- but we're well on our way:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600747.html

          "State law forbids any public funding for the $450 procedure, even in the case of rape or incest. " Disgusting.
        • craigob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@samiringo

          Are you claiming that not using public tax dollars for abortion is the equivalent of trying to ban it, or even a bad thing? Funding such things is not the proper role for government, and we shouldn't force people that find it repugnant to have to pay for someone else's abortion. That said, it should remain legal as given the government's track record on the war on drugs, poverty, illiteracy, prohibition, etc. if the government ever tried to ban it, in 5 years we can expect men to be having abortions.
    • hmac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah! I'm another Middle Tennesseean who has just returned from Michigan where I've been for two months. I'm totally psyched about getting this going!
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Mark up some Ron Paul support for Eastern Tennessee here in Knoxville. I passed a group of young college students waving Ron Paul signs at an intersection on the way home from work. Everyone was honking and giving them the thumbs up! We can win this one.
      • Zephkiel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2O.o

        I saw them too. Just because people were honking, though, it doesn't mean they actually support him. My father honked, and he doesn't know who Ron Paul is.
    • diablo75, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think I saw some bikers doing the same thing in response to my Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker. (Good thing I've got one on the car and the Harley) :D
  • jmas9, on 10/10/2007, -13/+0What could go wrong?
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -68/+2Ron Paul is against doing ANYTHING to fight terrorism. He's worse than Hillary and Obama. Even they would support sanctions against Iran and using troops in Afghanistan. This jackass won't even lift a finger when it comes to terrorism. Every possible policy, program or strategy, he's against it. How can you support someone who refuses to protect your country?
    • w00tfest99, on 10/10/2007, -4/+42He wants to protect it the best way possible, get rid of the reasons for them to hate us.
      • d33money, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I logged in just to digg you up for this comment.

        I wish everybody would realize this.
    • UtahApocalyse, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30How can you support people that are destroying our country?
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Utah, if terrorism is such a great threat, than why haven't we caught Bin Laden?
    • GarretJax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38No, he is the only one that IS willing to do something about terrorism. It is the fault of the US foreign policy that helps foster terrorism. We have something like 600 military bases in over 130 countries. The UN recognizes something like 190 countries. So the US has military bases in over 2/3 of the world. Yet the US doesn't have any foreign military bases within its border. Ron Paul wants to change our foreign policy so that we aren't 'invading' sovereign nations, pissing them off and creating terrorists. Ron Paul stands for liberty and freedom...not fear mongering.
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16what the ***** are those programs doing anyway? All they do is take away your rights, the people who want to commit terrorist acts will find a way to do it. As for sanctions against Iran what does that have to do with terrorism? And for that matter why should we be messing with Iran, I understand how you think Iraq went well, but why should the US be a police nation trying to protect the world from evil forces.
    • Larofeticus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Well he voted to go to afgahnistan, where there were terrorists. That counts as doing something.

      He did not vote to go to Iraq where there were not terrorists (until we arrived that is). That counts in his credit too.

    • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17the news has you so scared, i bet you sleep with the lights on at night.. maybe more cameras/guns/nukes is not the answer to making us safer. maybe our horrendous foreign policy is endangering us to a degree that a police state can not protect us.
      • firebhaal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More like the glow of fox news on the TV after he falls asleep on the couch.
    • Fr4nk2012, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17I don't think I need protection from 25 or so extremists thousands of miles away.
    • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8How can you continue to support a bunch of jackass policies designed to combat a tactic?
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Wow!! A King or Dictator would love this one as a subject.
    • madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Ron Paul is probably the best candidate with regards to terrorism. Have you ever heard him speak?

      First of all, he voted FOR going into Afghanistan. He strongly supports hunting down Osama Bin Laden. He isn't afraid to go take out terrorists.

      Secondly, he is probably the most EDUCATED candidate about world affairs. Did you see him school Rudy Giuliani in the debate? Ron Paul's strategy is brilliant, instead of just killing hateful people, he wants to stop the hate altogether. He actually studies history and current events and culture and reads things like the 9/11 Commission Report (which Giuliani should read) and uses this knowledge to defuse their hatred of us.

      Instead of being an idiot and saying "hey let's throw around military power in random spots around the globe," he actually uses his goddamn brain first. It's pretty amazing actually.
      • eliot2000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2 1)Ron Paul is against stem cell research
        2)Ron Paul is against ratification of the Kyoto treaty
        3)Ron Paul is in favor of ANWR drilling
        4)Ron Paul is against background checks for firearms purchases
        5)Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality
        6)Ron Paul opposes raising the minimum wage
        7)Ron Paul opposes universal healthcare
        WHY are people wild about this guy again?
        http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
        • CanIGetAWitness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That table is simplistic and misleading. What he is against is the federal government sticking it's nose in all that stuff or being responsible for it, instead leaving it up to the states and private enterprise. He wants to fix the problems, not make big fed government bigger. Educate yourself beyond simple charts.
          • eliot2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2How is opposing stem cell research supposed to be working against big government? If Ron Paul wants to appeal to progressives, maybe he should adopt some progressive ideologies instead of drowning us in spammers with cut and paste talking points. The sad fact is that RP is, in many ways, just another lockstep republican.
            Simply making his name appear on the Digg front page 19 times a day isn't going to be enough to sway people intelligent enough to seek out candidates that share their views. I can't wait until the primaries- we'll never hear about him again.
          • DanaLynn86, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul does not oppose stem cell research. Ron Paul opposes federal government funding of stem cell research.

            Ron Paul is interested in limiting the power of the federal government and giving the power to the states.
        • jayguy01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2These are two videos of Ron Paul talking about entitlements and the IRS. They explain why the entitlement system is flawed. As for backing out of foreign treaties like Kyoto its because he doesn't want foreign countries of global organizations making American decisions without the consent of the American people.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JIwxhRfug
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgHRoB6xUw&mode=user&search=
      • N8KAS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31)He is against federal funding of stem cell research. If your state wants to allow it and you want to do the research then you can but the federal government does not have the authority or the right to spend other people's money (taxes) on something that they might not approve of. If you and others want to see this research done then get together and fund it yourselves. You have that right in a free society. Stealing from others to pay for something you want to do is wrong. 2)The Kyoto Treaty does nothing to help the environment and will only add more and more restrictions on Americans and what we can or cannot do. It lessens freedom. It is a foreign alliance and will build upon the powers of the U.N., the global bankers and corporatists who profit from bloated government through the monopolistic control they gain from excessive regulation. If you think that the Kyoto treaty will stop large multinational corporations from polluting then you are fooling yourself. 3)You mean drilling our own oil instead of buying the oil from the middle east. What makes the environment in ANWR any more valuable then the environment in the middle east. Unfortunately our current civilization still runs on oil and will until the alternative fuel resources have been developed to the point where we no longer need oil. Drilling in ANWR would stop our funding of governments in the middle east who oppress their own people, which leads to hatred of us because we supported them financially and currently militarily. Is it the perfect solution? No, but it would improve our position in the world by strengthening our economy, weaken the oppressive dictatorships in the middle east and direct the force of the "terrorists" away from us and onto the dictatorships that oppress them. 4) Ron Paul is against any federal restrictions or regulations on firearms. The constitution gave us the right to bear arms to protect us against tyranny in government. If the government can say who can or cannot own a firearm then they can control opposition against them since guns are the people's teeth. All tyrants have restricted ownership on weapons before they slaughtered their citizens Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini and the list goes on and on and on... Again is it a perfect solution? No, but this is an imperfect world. More people have been slaughtered by governments in the last 100 years than by anyone or anything else. 5)Net Neutrality is just another way for the government to stick it's nose somewhere it does not belong and start controlling something else it has no business controlling. Like TV, Newspapers and Radio. If you let them start regulating the Internet then the access to the freedom of information that you currently have will be slowly eroded. All tyrannies are imposed step by step, not all at once. 6)Raising then minimum wage will only hurt the lower class not help it. All businesses have a bottom line and no matter what regulations you pass they will always need to turn a profit or they can not exist. If you raise the minimum wage then the businesses will lay people off because they only have so much budgeted for employee salary. By trying to help the poor you are in fact only increasing unemployment. For more education on this subject refer to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute @ www.mises.org for a brief tutorial in basic economics. 7)Universal heath-care is a program being pushed and lobbies for by the very same big pharmaceutical corporations and heath insurance companies that have ruined the heath-care system in this country. The reason being is that the government will pay for all the services provided by them so these companies can just charge more not less for their services. This is the model of big government/big corporate fascism and how through intense regulation and restriction they can monopolize an industry by making competition illegal.
        When will you "progressives" learn that through your desire for more and more government you only strengthen the very "capitalist" structures you claim to oppose. Thereby putting the lower and the soon to be nonexistent middle class under the foot of the rich and powerful who can have more influence on powerful politicians than your typical individual. Big government is a monopoly's best friend.

        This is written by someone who grew up in the ghetto and knows what it means to be poor and how they keep us that way. Most socialists including Karl Marx came from privileged backgrounds and fell in the love with the rhetoric of "helping the poor" by giving more power to the government. In every single tyrannical big government tragedy ever to befall mankind the poor and lower classes were always the ones to suffer the most. You want to help out the poor so much then give the homeless guy on the corner some money to get something to eat or start a nonprofit charity to give people a chance to help themselves. Don't steal from other hardworking people (taxes) so you can give their money away and feel like your "doing good". Your ideas of extensive government control are not a new ideas. It is the same ideas pushed by all the tyrants that I named above. Your ideas are regressive not progressive. Your wordgames won't work for you here. Government = Coercion and the use of force. More government = more oppression. Historical fact. The history of all government from Babylon to America is that they gained their power through their use of force on those who did not agree with them or submit to their self granted authority. Government is the enemy of mankind not the friend.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You're the perfect example of this new population of welfare junkies. We'll wean you off of this gov't cradled teet one way... or the other....
    • peccadillo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The only thing we need ***** protection from is our own govt.
    • TakeAction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mr... whatever your user name means? When was the last time you saw a terrorist? Show me one? I bet you sleep with your closet doors open.....just in case. How can we have a war on a feeling? WAR ON TERROR is *****. It is the same perpetual war as the "War on Drugs". Wake up and try and figure out why 75% of America disagrees with you.
  • blorc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Dugg, but this is pretty old.
    • FactaNonVerba7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3True, but I think that fact alone makes it even more scary. Still, the majority of the people out there don't even know that this is happening even though it was decided a couple of years ago. I'll admit, up until about 5 or 6 months ago, I had no idea what this was. Now, I fear for our country. How many of us have to stand up and say "no" so that they can't enforce it?
    • myxyplik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's old, but it's still relevant.
  • oracleofmist, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38At least someone knows what the gov't is doing to our rights. Ron Paul 2008 FTW
    • almightyzam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not so caught up to what Ron Paul is all about (aside from this article). So basically, he's a Libertarian running as a Republican?
  • mlock2k, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5666 the number of the beast. god help us all
    • Fr4nk2012, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I heard that the number 6 in hebrew numerals looked like a "w". so I guess that would mean every web address starts with 666.
    • Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Iron Maiden RULES!!
  • trenchcoat, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5Dr. Paul. I love his fishsticks.
    • nunzi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Funniest Ron Paul comment I've seen on Digg so far. Kudos!
  • bhank21, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19i still think we should sack the entire federal govt. for failing the country for the past 20 years. who ever came up with this idea should be dragged into the street and beaten on live tv.
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I say we bottle them up in the District ofColumbia where they belong
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Brilliant! We just build a big wall around DC, let all the black people out, and then seal it permanently... No one would ever miss them...
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How bout, all the people- cept politicians, of course!
  • poisonberry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Here in Wisconsin you don't need any form of ID to vote, yet you need one to get a library card. So screwed up. In fact, to get a drivers license or Wisconsin ID card, you only need to show "an official looking document in your language of origin." That isn't an overstatement, that is our dumb law. So, for those of us here with a HUGE influx of illegals who can get official US papers, any ID would be a blessing. Talk a story that should be in the national news is how Wisconsin has to be a magnet for those wanting official US documents without a hastle. In fact, the person at the DOT does not have to be able to read the paper, it only has to "look official". (I am not kidding)
    • jdramire, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Solution: leave Wisconsin
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Solution: Leave the Federal Government
    • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I agree illegal immigration is not a good thing, and your state is clearly behind the times in this area. There are many other immigration laws that are ignored though. In a country where we don't have that many social services, I hardly think illegal immigration is hurting us that badly - except possibly when it comes to police enforcement in some areas.
    • almightyzam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I really don't know if i can digg you up. I live near Milwaukee and I got my drivers license recently, I needed to bring essentially either a social security card,or a U.S. passport.
  • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15you guys missed the boat slightly. the legislation has already been passed. this goes into effect may 2008. you won't hear much about it again until the government is ready to ram it down your throats because we didn't stand up against this.
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I just read it got postponed until dec '09
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
    • Shink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Actually, I recall being one of 15 or 20 thousand people (through one website) who faxed Congress right before the vote telling them how pissed we were and that they had better not consider passing REAL ID. It worked, they got scared and it'll keep getting pushed back until everyone is put to sleep and they finally get it enacted.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8From the 9/11 commission report
    "Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.41 "
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch12.htm
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Its talking about Federal Areas."United States" isn't used descriptively
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1You're only supposed to quote the 9-11 commission report when it supports Ron Paul's claims like why we were attacked.
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The 9/11 attackers weren't using false identities when they boarded the planes. The idea that a perp won't attack if he's been positively identified is absurd when the perp intends to die in the attack.

      -jcr
    • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.41 "

      What's waoong, Daddy? Don't you twust us?
  • napk, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2This is an old document. REAL ID is pretty much dead in the water.
    • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If you think that you dont know very much about the issue. REAL ID is alot of little things, pull out your drivers license. Do you see a double bar code, or a really high qualtiy water mark picture?
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You are both right. There is a bunch of states that will not implement it, but there is also a bunch that will. That is why I am move from the People's Republic of Illinois to the Free State of New Hampshire.
      • napk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude... hahaha... what??
    • myxyplik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Um, no this is due to be activated in 2009. Do you even live in America?
      • napk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apparently you don't follow the issue that closely. Read up a bit champ.
    • freecon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1liar
  • JimmyDushku, on 10/10/2007, -27/+7Is there anyway to filter out Ron Paul stories? It's just getting too damn repetitive to come on Digg and hear about him.
    • Cnat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Step 1: Ignore them
      Step 2: Stop commenting on them
      Step 3: Repeat Step 1 and 2
      • btbalance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2exactly, I cannot believe people are so weak... well, actually, yeah I can.. in fact, that's what it's all about - weak minded fools bitching about the only thing that could actually save them.
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10if step 3 fails, step 4: ***** off.
    • Jesse, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Don't worry Jimmy, they'll diminish once he drops out in a couple months
      • Shink, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Ah, a soothsayer. Hope you put your life on that little bet.
    • Shink, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Stop using digg. Not hard. Go create a neocon derivative.
    • madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Why the ***** do all you douchebags feel so threatened for Ron Paul? Is it because he wants to save your country? Is it because he wants to restore your liberties?

      Seriously, I see plenty of articles on Digg that I am not interested in and somehow I manage to... *GASP* ignore them and move onto other articles that I am interested in! Like Ron Paul ones! ;)

      Why is it such a big deal? How does it negatively impact your life so much that it becomes worth it to waste even MORE of your time coming in and commenting? I don't get it.
      • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2because they are being *paid to spam Ron Paul's and any 911 truth article on digg. This government fears democratized websites such as digg. Plus digg is the #1 social networking site, woohoo!

        Can't you just smell the fear on those neo-cons/neo-libs??? I do, and it smells like CHICKEN.
    • btbalance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you're weak.
    • skipdog172, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Odd, I find myself ignoring hundreds of articles that don't interest me every day. Don't see me complaining in the comments sections of those stories...
  • IamChrisMcCall, on 10/10/2007, -38/+9Buried as spam, shut the ***** up about Ron Paul for crying out loud
    • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8I suppose you think your freedoms are span as well
      • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3How does an identification card limit your freedom?
        • Shink, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Ask the victims of the Nazis.
        • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Its not the Identification card that limits your freedom... its making it a criminal offense to not have it which limits your freedom.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's like the old Soviet Union. You won't be able to go anywhere without proof or documentation. And if you leave the country- well, don't even get me started on that.
    • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You first.
  • ufee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29Ron Paul is speaking my mind.
    • Daniel591992, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Then, in that case, I'm not voting for him.
  • kprooney, on 10/10/2007, -34/+6I call Ron Paul spam
  • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -11/+51Ron Paul is sounding better every time I hear him.
    • sodade, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8That's what I thought until I read this crap: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
      • kellymahan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Really what is it about what you read that turned you off? Or did you not read it?

        The article states that he is anti-abortion, but he also states that it is not him, nor the federal government that should be making that decision on the legality. It is up to the states to rule on their own. He has followed the give more power to the state, less to the fed, even on issues that he has a very strong opinion on. That says a lot about a president. One that can lead for the people, instead of just for his own people.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's all well and good, but just realize that he's for individual states being able to decide on abortion rights without federal interference. While we might find it distasteful that some states might choose to outlaw abortion altogether, we should keep in mind that it wasn't the federal government's right to control this in the first place. Also, there's a good chance that the supreme court might still find state legislation banning abortion unconstitutional on the same grounds as the Roe v. Wade judgment, so it's still not clear that states would be able to ban it without a fight.
  • jknevitt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+312005 called. They want their article back. In any event, Ron Paul FTW.
  • cccv, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24Old, but relevant both specifically and generally.
    My favorite part:
    "Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card?"
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3No, they'll try to rip off some cheap state ID, which is exactly why we need IDs to meet a federal standard.
      • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Federal? Try International, the standards for the REAL ID are the same that are being pushed around the world, not to mention they will be linked to the same database, all for stopping world wide terror of course.
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -21/+12Does having a SS# violate your rights?
    Does having a a greencard violate your rights?
    Does having a drivers license violate your rights?
    Does having a a credit card violate your rights?
    Does having a a ID for your Job your rights?
    • aflaks, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12having to show every one them on a minutes notice at any given activity is a violation.
      • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3No one is asking you to show ID everywhere. You are very confused
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, they already ask you to show ID in some places- like at the bar, for instance.
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21you don't have to have any of those things ... having any of those is your decision.

      being forced to have an identification regardless of what you want violates your rights significantly. having to carry this ID on you at all times to prove who you are at all times is a huge violation of your rights.

      first there's the mandatory identification, next comes the checkpoints. history class is your friend.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Slippery slope is yours.
      • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There is no right to be anonymous from birth to death in the US.
      • shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't remember signing up for a social security number...
        • DanaLynn86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Often times parent sign their children up for a social security number at the hospital when filling out paperwork. You didn't sign up for a SS number, but your parents signed you up.
      • garvallagh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0We have it here in Spain, we are required to carry it by law and can get fined or thrown in chokey if we dont have it one us. Spain has an excuse though.....the Identy card here is a remenant for the wonderful days when Franco was shooting people who didnt agree with him. Have a nice life America, you guys are next.
    • Cnat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yes
      No, If you have a green card you're not a citizen
      Yes, sometimes
      No, unless the government steals the information on it
      No, if your employer requires it than that's between him and you not the government
    • Swmorgan77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes, No, Yes, No, No.
      • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Moronic Liberal.
        • btbalance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3are you automatically programmed to see any opposing views as "liberal".. it's ironic especially since his reply is quite obviously not liberal.. I mean, you people who constantly label others as "liberals" are complete ***** fools.
  • bleonard, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8OMG!! a political article on digg that links to a website that ISNT an op-ed blog?!? i would digg just for that!!

    oh wait, its from THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND FRIGGIN FIVE!!!!!!
    • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11How many people have read this before?
      Is it still relevant?

      Unless you know all information that exists before today, I don't see what all the bitching and moaning about reading a slightly old yet entirely relevant article is.
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not all the postings are from blogs, fellas.
  • SwordofKahless, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Clock is ticking. Only a matter of time before mainstream candidate supporters of both parties begin to bash this article since it relates to Ron Paul. These sheeple will blindly give up their freedoms for a real ID that these candidates support and lets not forget the actual belief they have that it would help fight the war on terror.
  • aflaks, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12BIG. BROTHER. IS. WATCHING.
  • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8This discussion gives you the impression that Americans have any rights left ?? Who cares about a ID if the rest of your freedom already left the building
    • jdramire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0zzz to this get a better rant
    • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I'd love for you to name one freedom that's been taken away from you... You know, something that actually affects you in real life rather than just gives you an excuse for an ideological rant...
      • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Federal Government cannot take your Freedoms.. however you can trade them in for granted rights if one wishes... its your right.
  • TheNewNumberTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Good points but Fake ID is toast. However some ***** will apply it to another bill in the future.
    http://digg.com/politics/Senate_refuses_to_fund_Real_ID
    • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yup, they stuck it in the amnesty bill that got defeated
  • IJustSnipedYou, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3How is this violating our rights? Oh, it's so bad that we have to prove that we are who we say we are, and we are over 18 when we want to vote.
    • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We already have documents that prove who we are. This violates our rights because this is supposed to be a "Free Country"! We don't need big brother tracking our every move.
  • klute, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36We are being primed in the UK. You guys really should support a man of corage like Dr Paul. I wish we had somebody like him over here.
    • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd suggest that you learn as much about Libertarian philosophy (the basis for Ron Paul's ideals) and move to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project if you really want more liberty. If you'd prefer to stay where you are you could just form your own organization. It's not only the United States that needs waking up.
  • Jack9, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Reliable ID is a GOOD THING(tm) and necessary for justice, much less government.
    • NaciremaDream, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well thats good... they can have fun with it in their little District of Columbia too.
  • Jesse, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Ron Paul: A few hours after I eat, I have to take a *****

    "Go Dr. Ron!"
    "That Ron Paul is convincing me more everyday"
    "Another reason to vote for Dr. Paul"
    "9/11 was an inside job'"
    "You RP haters are morans"
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I love how they dont even try to hide the spam anymore.
      • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, like getting a Ron Paul article buried for spam after it hits the frontpage. I guess that counts as spam too, huh?
    • TruthWillWin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yea, some good points concerning Dr. Pauls constitutional message..

      idiot..

      greetings from the netherlands. ( who are looking amazed while your most important document is being destroyed)

      the constitution.
      • btbalance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You gotta understand that these meatheads are going through an involuntary reaction that has been drilled deep into their psyche.. they've been whipped into submission and any talk of the Constitution goes way over their spineless heads.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Digg parent up. Let's see if we can beat the RP spammers.
    • ratnacage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Owned
  • frodobaggins, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I really don't get how this is any different from a drivers license/state id ? Can someone please enlighten me specifically why this particular thing is a bad idea ?
    • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Basically the end result is the international database that has the Real ID info on it has a very high qualtiy picture that if say your walking through an airport in China the security cameras can match your face against all the others in the database find you and bring up all your information. Lets just hope you were never part of a free Tibet movement.
      • arsenic0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh comon you are stretching..
        Yea China is just dying for our national ID cards so they can start kidnapping people who want to free Tibet..

        Give me a break...
    • Cnat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Federal government doesn't need access to this information for any legitimate reason.
    • cespee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you don't have the right vaccines, it may be tracked on a Real ID card and you're then not able to board a plane. So it's a great way for the federal government to regulate EVERYTHING in your life. If you protest a war, you're flagged as a criminal on your ID card. Then, the REAL ID card could turn into a Verichip requirement where you are shocked electronically every now and then without your knowledge.
  • synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10since terrorists come here on visas disguised as students or visitors, how will a national ID stop terrorism? unless we start tagging all foreigners with GPS bracelets (an idea which I'm sure gives Repubs an erection just thinking about it)
  • Mockylock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7As for his comment, "As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens".. he made a great point. Though people think taking my guns away will solve problems, and is a fault in the constitution, they're also the first to guard people's privacy, when they've got nothing to hide. It's one or the other, ya know?
  • trollgrock, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3I don't get the big uproar. What is wrong with having to prove who you are? Do you have something to hide?
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Here's the thing... you shouldn't have to prove your identity unless the government has a damn good reason for asking. Random checkpoints and the like are definitely a non-starter. As for having something to hide, that's the slippery slope right there. It is our right to have something to hide.
      • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to have something to hide.
        • simonsanders, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Show me where it says that you don't have the right to hide something.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+64th and 5th Amendments.
    • smthop3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So what, the only reason I might want to hide something is because I'm doing something wrong?
    • Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It was your same complacency that had Germany under wraps before WWII. Everyone had to have their papers.
  • Luthorcorp331, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2The people on here want illegal aliens voting for their party in mass. This card will go a long way to stopping that crime. Nice try kids.
  • mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3Real ID IS NECESSARY. Real ID doesn't take you any of your rights. Maybe some of the smart folks commenting here can tell me what rights are they loosing because of the REAL ID card ? Everybody likes to talk, nobody likes to go a bit deeper into details ?

    If you have this card in your pocket what current activities you will not be able to perform any more ? NAME JUST ONE SUCH ACTIVITY.
    • MouseyTung, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Rights is a hard word to use. A better word for this situation is bad and the people are going to get screwed over so hard from this.
    • Cnat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The Federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this. It is a matter for the states and none of the national government's business. Rather that insisting we identify rights it infringes on, I suggest you identify from where the national government gets authority.
    • mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0NO ! Let's not loose the sight of what is the most important thing: NO SINGLE RIGHT is violated by the REAL-ID card. If there are some technical details that make the REAL-ID card illegal, then those should be removed.

      On the contrary, if arguments are found to prove that the REAL-ID card is stepping on people's rights, then the REAL-ID card should NOT be implemented regardless of any other technical detail that may make it possible.
      • caribou16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Think of your social security number. This number was not issued to turn every citizen into a number, but that's exactly the net effect. Now-a-days, you can't do anything official without giving up this number that was supposedly never designed for identification purposes. Want any utilities for your home, phone, Internet, water, cable TV, etc? They want your SSN. Anything to do with credit will require your SSN. This is what will happen with a national ID card. And if the information of these cards is standardized, instead of a clerk giving an ID a cursory inspection, the card could be swiped and a record of what you bought will be kept to be cross indexed at a later time.

        Scary.

    • shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) buying food (this depends on the ID, that is, who you are)
      ... there are more, but I will not waste time stating the obvious.
    • mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0For @shamanlife:

      Are from another planet ? Very similar cards are already issued in Europe. Nobody is going to ask for such a card at the grocery store.

      That is the problem with the people bashing the REAL-ID card: thousands of visitors from Digg were unable to provide even one single example of lost rights due to this card.

      The leaders MUST do what is best. Listening to the mob is the stupidest thing to do. The "mob" rarely proves to have even a small intelligence coefficient. In mobs, people who dominate are those with short and radical opinions: THIS IS GOOD, THIS IS BAD. People who are able to see the nuances are put aside simply because the mob doesn't have the intellect required to analyze them. And let's not forget that most of the time, people don't like to think. Thinking is an effort in itself. A very good example is what happens with this discussion. Everybody is against REAL-ID but nobody KNOWS WHY !

      This is an appeal to all the Digg-"intellectuals". Please provide more "obvious reasons" against the REAL-ID card. What we have till now is this:
      1) you will not be able to buy food
      • garvallagh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually if you want to pay with a credit card here, you have to show your ID card. My ID card states that i am an Irish foreigner, my DOB, My Card number...... which i need for absolutley everything (banking, gov admin, dentist, doc, feking cinema)A terrible photo, Address, a copy of my Signature. On the back it has a copy of my finger print, it tells me i am a Tax paying guest to Spain. A very long bar code, and what local authority i am registered with. I cant get paid without this card, i cant rent a house without this card, i cant pay with a credit card without this card, There is no inherant danger in the card as it stands, but if i dont have it im in a world of pain and any pig can ask me at anytime for it, its my legal duty to carry it...... and it aboslutley did nothing to stop the bombs here on the 11th of March
        • mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0For @garvallagh

          I can understand that it is annoying for you to have such a card with you all the time, but that is all. The card doesn't take any of your prior rights.

          About the bombs from 11 March… this is an analogy used all over Internet in order to challenge law and order. Think about it: the secret service did NOT STOP the bombing. The police did NOT stop the bombing either. Maybe you want to disband the secret service, or the police ?

          A REAL-ID card is a very useful tool in the hands of the authority in order to monitor people's lifes if there is a need for such measures. So, it is useful for authorities, in certain conditions, but most important, such a card is very useful to you as a person. Any time you do a transaction with an unknown private individual, you should ask the people with which you are doing the transaction for a piece of paper that proves their identity (for example, if you rent an apartment). A piece of paper that is very hard to counterfeit and most of all is the same everywhere. People will never learn 40 types of driver's licenses or other types of IDs but will be able to learn how a unified REAL-ID card looks like.

          Let's get back for a second to the example of renting an apartment. Let's suppose that there is NO REAL-ID card in circulation. You allow somebody to stay in your apartment because of some driver's license emitted somewhere in a virtual place called "Abba". The guest will completely destroy your apartment then will disappear. You will later learn that the driver's license in "Abba" country is completely different from what you saw. What you would do in this situation ?

          It would have been quite rude to say to the guest staying in your house that you don't trust his driver license ID. Most people would not have the guts to go beyond this point. While if you would had a REAL ID card, that ideally can be verified on a card reader then this situation might have been avoided from the beginning. But you would never thank the REAL-ID card for it, because people never think too much about things that "might" happen.

          A REAL-ID card will do a lot to prevent people from breaking the law, which indirectly means that a real-id card PROTECTS your rights.
      • dinsy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1which makes you a slave
  • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Of course a simple ID card isn't going to stop terrorism. I don't think anybody in their right mind would try to argue that point. But it will help. It will also help with a multitude of other issues, including curbing the accessibility of alcohol and cigarettes to minors, stopping illegal immigrants from voting, keeping DUI offenders from driving, among other things. A national ID card won't do anything to violate your privacy. It won't change your life. It's just gonna help protect you all. Quit mindlessly following the 4th Amendment zombies out there. Think for yourselves for once. There is nothing unconstitutional about a national ID.
  • jdramire, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9frodobaggins, This is considered bad because there are certain rights that we currently have such as going to the grocery store that have the possibility of being prohibited if you do not have this National ID card. An underlying tone that has not yet been brought up is a religious one. I am not going to get religious, just that this is similar in ways to a "Mark of the Beast" where you cannot do anything unless you have a certain "ID" or "Mark".

    Basically it's a fear of the National Government taking over things that it need not take over, in the name of saving us from the "Terrorists".
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Your argument makes no sense. No one is asking you to show your national ID card to go to the grocery store. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Religous nutjobs and conspiracy theorists UNITE!
      • shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The slippery slope is intentionally made subtle. We are boiled frogs.
  • daydozer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Remember, Remember The fifth of November, The gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason Why the gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4People shouldn't base their politics on comic books, comic books should be based on politics.
      • shellacked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3umm... this is based on politics. read your history on the gunpowder plot of 1605: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

        In what world do you live where this has anything to do with comic books?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm sorry, I must have been confused by some dystopian future world where masked anarchists fight for freedom against a fascist government.

          Anywho, so what precisely does a 400 year old attempted bombing over religon in England have to do with the Real ID?
    • PirateTactics, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2test test. who keeps deleting my comments?
  • irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It is important we have something in place that will allow us to make sure only US citizens are able to vote in US elections. If it takes a national ID card to get that done, then I'm for it. It's not too much to ask that citizens show photo ID in order to vote.
  • bumb1ebee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The ID card is another way for the federal government to control the American people. Did they forget that the we are supposed to control the government, not the other way around? Don't buy the bull that the ID card will protect us from terrorism because at the same time Congress will do nothing to protect our borders.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.