Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (20544)	11/20/2001 5:44:21 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 59480

>>When I was a young man the difference between, for example, Rebelistan and Yankistan was much larger than it is now, culturally, linguistically, economically as well as in the foods and laws (i.e. segregation).<< Me, too. For tonight's class, had to read a book on the Scottsboro trials. Eeeek. Not "eeeek" about the book, about the trials - and how the Alabama "justice" dept. treated blacks. A few notches above the Taliban, but in the same ballpark.

To: Bilow who wrote (20544)	11/20/2001 11:00:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Heck, we only have two significant political parties, and there's not a "dime's bit of difference" between them. They aren't the facists and the socialists but there is a bit more then a dime's worth of difference. In the end the controversial decisions often require some broad support to pass so one party needs the moderates from the other, but if one party had total control that they thought would last you would see a difference from the other party, particularly if there was a move toward either the liberal wing of the Democrats or the conservative wings of the Republicans. There is some overlap between the parties so in that sense there is little difference, if that's what you where talking about. Since there are only two major parties and since the electoral system is set up in such a way that minor parties have little power, its in the interest of different groups that see some common ground to join together under a bigger tent. What would be a radical party in another country becomes a radical wing of a bigger party here. There is a lot of differences but in the end the actual decisions are likely to be somewhere in the middle. Tim

To: Bilow who wrote (20544)	11/21/2001 8:18:20 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Hi all; Further on the topic of national identity cards (or "driver's licenses". I don't see how state's rights and federalization applies to this. If there were a state that didn't require drivers licenses I can see there being an issue, but the fact is that each state requires drivers licenses. And the states more or less recognize each other's licenses. Since the laws on drivers licenses are more or less uniform (maybe you can get a bit more drunk in one state and keep your license, maybe another state tests you harder when you're old and doddering, but the differences are minor), we should move towards a situation where the licenses are also uniform. It would be more efficient. As far as lost "freedoms", the freedoms were curtailed when the government required the airlines to ask for identity documents in order to fly. I don't think this requirement has stopped any terrorist acts, or made any difference at all to the safety of aircraft. I think this laws was made at the request of the airlines so that they could better control their ticket prices. This may come as a shock to youthful ears, but as a young man I regularly flew using an assumed name. People who collected frequent flier miles would sell tickets, typically through a business, to people who wanted to fly. It made a lot of sense for a "round trip anywhere in the US" frequent flier ticket to be used by, for instance, a traveller from New York to San Francisco than by an inhabitant of Kansas City to anywhere in the US. So these tickets were bought and sold. The airlines, naturally, didn't like this, so they required that the tickets be issued in the name of the person holding the frequent flier miles. That led to a situation where you'd end up flying as "Mary Jones" instead of your real name, which could get kind of odd. In the unlikely event that the airlines noticed this, you had a choice of either claiming to have parents with odd preferences for children's names, having had a recent sex change operation, or that Mary Jones had given you the ticket as a gift. Of course every time a plane crashed the airline wouldn't know who was actually on board... But my point is that the freedom to travel under an assumed name went away when the requirement was made that we show identity documents (usually a driver's license) in order to board aircraft. The nature of those documents, state issued, or federal issued, has nothing to do with the freedom that was taken away. -- Carl