What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
315 Comments
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -10/+129The definition of sovereignty for those of you that don't know what it is, as quoted from the President (So it must be right):
"Tribal sovereignty means just that; it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+87"looks like we're one step closer to being assigned numbers at birth"
Umm, sorry to be the one to break this to you... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+95This is absolute *****. Since when did the federal government have the authority to blackmail the states into abiding by unconstitutional laws? This country is no longer a republic or a democracy.
- RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+86Right, because we need to watch EVERYONE to get the thirty people we're looking for. Suggestion: when looking for needles, don't add hay. Maybe when they actually catch a group of /real/ terrorists, besides the sideshows they've caught already--look into it, and you will find that yes, they /are/ just sideshows--I might have confidence in this program. Until then, maybe they might want to look into the obvious weaknesses, like the consistently failing security at our airports, or maybe the ports, or maybe getting a computer system for the FBI that isn't outstripped in efficiency by the mid-1970's officeplace...
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+75America Land of the Free!(Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited)
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71This is dumb and probably unconstitutional. What if you are on trial but don't have one of their little cards? You can't enter the courthouse? You can't fly on a privately owned airplane without government permission? This country is being run by crackheads.
- Incom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+70welcome to the former soviet union
- winterblink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+67Get ready to hear this a lot: "Papers, please."
- dougsnell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+64Right, because after this the terrorists will be the only one's without IDs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60Funny, the EU is trying to open borders and eliminate the need for passports within their member states; we are trying to close borders and restrict movement.
I don't like it. - Senturion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60"Papers please."
The ease with which Americans are allowing their hard-won freedoms to be taken away is disturbing. - chrisldenton, on 10/12/2007, -19/+76@lordmetroid- Have you actually read the constitution? Please point out what parts of the constitution make each state an independent country. You are correct in saying that the states used to be (semi) independent. That was BEFORE the constitution was ratified, when we were under the articles of confederation (1777-1788). It was the constitution itself that set up a federal government, thereby taking away the state's independence. And, if you are unaware of history, the constitution was ratified in 1788, which was a full 73 years before Lincoln took office in 1861. The constitution does not give the states any right to succeed from the union (if you don't believe me, look it up). So please try and make sure that you know what you are talking about before repeating complete *****.
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56Good they aren't making you get one if you already have a drivers license just get one when yours expires. Thank you Arizona for giving me a drivers license that doesn't expire till 2048.
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -11/+64Oh what a wonderful Police State we live in, where we need a passport to even travel out of our designated living area...
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Papers?
Oh, you gotta love this...
FTA:
"DHS estimates that it will take only 44 minutes for a current driver's license holder to get a certified copy of their birth certificate, travel to the DMV and get a new license when it expires. No current driver's license holder will be allowed to renew a license by mail."
Only 44 minutes to get a certfied copy of my birth certificate from out of state and get through the mind-numbing wait at the DMV? WOW!!! Looks like the DHS has invented the time warp! - richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46You could argue that Texas & California are countries I guess...
- keq1381, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41@krymore
>This is absolute *****. Since when did the federal government have the authority to blackmail the states into abiding >by unconstitutional laws? This country is no longer a republic or a democracy.
It has happened before. Look into how the federal government got the states to change the drinking age to 21. - Justinsb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Some Soviet leader once said (and I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the exact quote) "The difference between the Soviet Union and the United States is that we tell the people they have less freedom than they actually do. You tell them they have more."
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -12/+50Another freedom out the window.
America, land of the wee and home the slave. - avisgoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38I seriously hate the whole "Why worry about this if you have nothing to hide?" argument. Some people just like to have privacy, OK?
- redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37because who the ***** is the US government to watch me? ***** that.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -62/+99Actually everyone of the states was considered independent countries until Lincoln violated the constitution to such a degree that the states lost so much sovereignty that they aren't looked upon as independent anymore.
- ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46In United States, papers own you!
So sad that I can pretty much say that now . . . . - Augie1969, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39This slippery slope that we seem to be on just got a little steeper.
- CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41@lordmetriod:
You need to read up on your history and the Constitution. Article I, sec. 8 would be a good start: "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce... among the several states..." You could then keep reading to sec. 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "
Article IV, sec. 4 can also shed some light on the subject: "Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
Yep, sounds like they were definitely treated as "independent countries," free to do whatever they wanted. - steamynachos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35When you start thinking that these new policies will not affect you becuase you are doing nothing wrong, don't worry, the government will find something you're doing and call it wrong, eventually
- wraithblayde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Well, looks like we're one step closer to being assigned numbers at birth and having tracking chips installed. I'm all for keeping people safe, but when you start destroying people's privacy, you're one step closer to destroying the very freedoms for which we fight. I don't know why people don't see this, but this is exactly what terrorists and their ilk want, they don't want to cause death and destruction, to them that's only a means to an end, they want to restrict the country, take away people's freedom, make their lives that much harder, every time something like this is introduced we get one step closer to assuring victory to the very people we claim to be fighting against.
- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Long live the USSA.
- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Because there is no reason a government entity should monitor (expending time and resources) on it's own people. What might seem like no biggie at first can quickly escalate to areas that you simply don't want to think about. You turn a country of free thinking and ideas into a police state -- one needs only to look at Cuba or the former USSR to see what big brother can do.
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The United States has not, by the constitution, been given the right to force universal identification. - missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Not probably. This is a fundamental breach of privacy, and this is the kind of thing that the states are supposed to be able to resist. Yes, the federal government does control the states to some degree, but there are provisions for state powers.
Honestly, what the hell? This is something that was put in place by Republicans, and they're the party that's supposed to be in favor of SMALLER federal government. Someone needs to go learn what his party is about.
Furthermore, after the security breach of military records about a year ago, I'll be damned if I willingly provide any more private information to the government for them to keep in a big, unsecure database. Our government has this nasty habit of putting a bunch of information in one place, and then someone gets hold of it because it was so easy to locate. - AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26flan
It changed, now if the parent of a child wants to take a tax exemption for the child you know need a SSN for the child. That said most children get SSNs pretty quickly after being born. - jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33how is this not a violation of my rights.
- YourTechSupport, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Aside from learning to speak Japanese and practice my running from monsters, what would it take for a white boy that's not quite an otaku to gain Japanese citizenship?
also: Their cellphones are that much cooler. - Justinsb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37Hawaii never even agreed to be a state. It was invaded, a puppet leader put in place and the puppet government agreed to be part of the US (first as a territory, later as a state)
- Canister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24A person who is willing to give up freedom for security, will find they have neither.
When I hear someone say, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about." the hair on the back of my neck stands up. I've never heard that logic used for anything except to justify loss of freedom, loss of rights, or loss of privacy.
By their very nature, governments aren't concerned with my best interests. We need to limit what our government is allowed to do to us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26> citizens will not be able to [...] enter federal courthouses
So.... If I'm not able to enter a federal court house, then I guess federal law doesn apply to me?
...oh, that's right; you get escorted in wearing handcuffs if you start thinking that way. - r00t3d0ut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23am i the only person bothered by the fact that the [former] head of homeland security tom ridge sits on the board of directors of savi technology?
- DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Because there is no standard definition of "wrong." It's the same old "who will watch the watchers?" argument -- how can you trust those who are monitoring you to have society's best interests at heart?
Laws are not moral absolutes, and giving any one, corruptible entity the power to monitor everything and dole out predetermined punishments is asking for trouble. - Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26"This country is being run by crackheads."
Close. The nation is being run by criminals. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Just wait till they make these realid's in barcode form to be stamped on the forehead or right hand of all newborn children.. For someone that's obsessed with doing whatever it takes to "bring Jesus back", Mr. Bush sure hasn't considered which part of the apocalyptic prophecy he's fulfilling.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21A big problem comes in when your opinion of what's wrong differs from the government's. And knowledge is power, if they know what we're doing, they can abuse that power.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Because this is all based on the assumption that everyone MAY commit a crime, and if the government has every ones DNA, they can easily catch the criminal. I know I'll be asked if I have my tin-foil hat on with this, but do you think our government is above framing someone it feels is a threat?
Right now we have IDs, state issued driver's licenses, but the federal government doesn't administer this. By mandated federal domestic passports, or whatever they want to call them, it takes away the ID power from the states and gives the federal government that power.
Further, our government is betting on the people like you who profess the "I'm not breaking any laws, so why should I care," or "Only criminals need to worry," reasoning for ignoring the issue. At what point will you stop and say "Where did my rights go?" - CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@triscuitbiscuit
you might sing a different tune if they decide to watch you and then decide that what you're doing is "wrong" - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20True the DMV is only 10 minutes away, but I've never gotten out of there in under 120 minutes.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19The American people are whom they consider the terrorist. Haven't you figured this out already? It's to set up a control grid for US.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I'm going to start carrying a gun and wearing body armor when I go out.
We have the technology and the means to resist fascism. I'm not saying we should go around shooting cops, but if they have guns and we don't, we're sort of at their mercy. Maybe we should start trying to change the balance of power.
Right to bear arms FTW. - BuddyDoQ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19If you've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch?
Sounds like a waste of time and resources, that would be better spent chasing, I don't know, say, real criminals. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29PLEASE everyone go along with this and approve of this or the government will have to stage another terror attack again.
- Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@gremos sez: "At least in former soviet union no one crashed planes into buildings...
Get a piece of paper (or plastic) and get over it. Additional card in pocket never killed anyone."
No, in Russia the terrorists just take entire theaters or grade schools hostage and then try to kill everyone inside. You can see how much the Russian Draconian security measures helped them.
All these so called Homeland security measures do is let the government keep their Big Brother eyes on lawful citizens and do nothing to thwart the real terrorists. -
Show 51 - 100 of 316 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is