An equally valid argument is that anyone who makes any choice that is harmful to themself deserves the utmost state care that can possibly be given, because if anything, stupid and weak people need the most help.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
I'd feel like we already have those and they are vastly underfunded
actually, we don't really have those. we've been getting rid of those over time, which I personally do support in all honesty
but as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and within that part, I would argue that if some one does not contribute to society in any way, and in fact costs money to society through conscious choices of their own, why should society have to pay for it, when that money could be goign elsewhere?
I guess you won't mind when meth heads break into your house
or when your taxpayer money goes to foster care for the kids that get taken away from meth heads
nah, it's certainly not in society's interest to help people beat their addictions to drugs
I'm not saying I agree with that line. I'm just pointing out that it does have some theoretical merit.
I see it as a question of how much respect you have for your fellow humanity.
Playing devil's advocate here, I would ask why I should have any more respect for a man than he has for himself.
The money that goes towards attempting to rehabilitate recidivist drug users could instead be going towards education, or to NASA, or to something else with more merit, no?
Again, if money was the issue: "...incarceration is more expensive than treatment..."
how is incarceration more expensive than treatment? I don't need exact figures, just an explaination (like how the death penalty is more expensive because of appeals)
what is it that makes incarceration more expensive.
also, how many drug users would neccesitate incarceration if left untreated, versus the number who would simply die?
building prisons, paying guards, running the prison, large prison populations
and the fact that when you go to prison for drugs you likely aren't getting ANY treatment at all
as to your second question, we don't really know, because we don't just fucking let the ones with tracks in their arms die when they show up in the ER
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were using drug crime itself as grounds for locking people up there. Locking folks up just for possession is indefensible, IMO.
I was talking SOLELY about the junkies who hurt themselves bad enough to need help.
An equally valid argument is that anyone who makes any choice that is harmful to themself deserves the utmost state care that can possibly be given, because if anything, stupid and weak people need the most help.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
I'd feel like we already have those and they are vastly underfunded
actually, we don't really have those. we've been getting rid of those over time, which I personally do support in all honesty
but as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and within that part, I would argue that if some one does not contribute to society in any way, and in fact costs money to society through conscious choices of their own, why should society have to pay for it, when that money could be goign elsewhere?
I guess you won't mind when meth heads break into your house
or when your taxpayer money goes to foster care for the kids that get taken away from meth heads
nah, it's certainly not in society's interest to help people beat their addictions to drugs
what percentage of drug addicts are criminals?
I think that's an important point in distilling all of this
An equally valid argument is that anyone who makes any choice that is harmful to themself deserves the utmost state care that can possibly be given, because if anything, stupid and weak people need the most help.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
Evander, I know you are playing Shit-Head's Advocate here so I am going to give you a little leeway here.
But really, if you are against socialized medicine, then being against government-help for drug addicts is an internally consistent position.
It also, in my opinion, makes you a heartless bastard with shit for ethics.
But, if you support government-run health care, drawing a line at helping addicts help themselves makes you a hypocritical asshole who needs to shut the fuck up.
So, take your own stand on it. Don't try to stir the pot by expressing poor opinions. Not all devils need advocates.
Smarten up.
The bolded was a given, I thought.
If you want my personal platform, I personally support socialized medicine, so OF COURSE I support helping junkies.
But I feel like too many people are simply overlooking the arena of "personal responsibility." Especially when you bring recidivists in to the equation.
So stop.
Evander, not all devils need advocates.
Being against socialized medicine (and by extension, being against rehab programs) is, in my opinion, an ethically bankrupt position that sane people shouldn't even be arguing about.
If it's not even the position you agree with (in fact, the opposite being the case) then I suggest that perhaps you should stop trying to present it and argue for it.
There's plenty of shit-headed libertarians on this forum who can argue how they aren't scumbags for themselves.
Let them do it.
Just because it's a debate forum (in part) doesn't mean you have to step into the vacuum of stupid opinions and fight for a shitty position just because nobody else is.
Giving drug addicts health care is kind of like a reward.
Oh man, did you get strung out on heroin? Goody boy, have a pick me up cookie. If you do drugs, you (can) fuck up your body. Why should the tax payer help you?
And fuck them smokers and fat people too.
There are quite a few people who would agree on all three fronts.
If a dude chooses to eat until he weighs five hundred pounds, why should anyone other than him have to pay for his treatment. And if he can't afford treatment, he shouldn't have chosen to do this to himself.
Well, when this five-hundred pound homeless guy dies on the street, you'll probably be expecting someone to clean up the mess, right?
I'm not saying I agree with that line. I'm just pointing out that it does have some theoretical merit.
I see it as a question of how much respect you have for your fellow humanity.
Playing devil's advocate here, I would ask why I should have any more respect for a man than he has for himself.
The money that goes towards attempting to rehabilitate recidivist drug users could instead be going towards education, or to NASA, or to something else with more merit, no?
Again, if money was the issue: "...incarceration is more expensive than treatment..."
how is incarceration more expensive than treatment? I don't need exact figures, just an explaination (like how the death penalty is more expensive because of appeals)
what is it that makes incarceration more expensive.
also, how many drug users would neccesitate incarceration if left untreated, versus the number who would simply die?
Not doing anything is probably cheaper. We lock them up because they cause problems in society we simply don't want to have. I'm guessing the large cost of imprisonment without rehabilitation comes from the fact that people relapse, and spend their life in and out of prison.
An equally valid argument is that anyone who makes any choice that is harmful to themself deserves the utmost state care that can possibly be given, because if anything, stupid and weak people need the most help.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
I'd feel like we already have those and they are vastly underfunded
actually, we don't really have those. we've been getting rid of those over time, which I personally do support in all honesty
but as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and within that part, I would argue that if some one does not contribute to society in any way, and in fact costs money to society through conscious choices of their own, why should society have to pay for it, when that money could be goign elsewhere?
The easiest case that can be made is by arguing that a government has an obligation to protect its citizens and aid them when aid is required. Additionally and more pragmatically such programs can enable these trouble citizens to become productive in the future so you can see it like an investment in a better future for not only the people who directly take advantage of such programs but also the country that indirectly benefits from it.
But I don't think you have to take such a pragmatic approach. I think when a large organizational entity such as a government is in such a position to help people as our government is then it would be immoral and irresponsible not to take advantage of that. If you pass one in need of help on the side of a road, you must help them. I don't think it's unreasonable to actively seek these people out so as to more effectively help them, either.
An equally valid argument is that anyone who makes any choice that is harmful to themself deserves the utmost state care that can possibly be given, because if anything, stupid and weak people need the most help.
Make what you will of "equally valid."
they need help, yes, but government funds don't come out of nowhere.
How would you feel about creating institutions to house these people in? If we are deeming them to be incapable of taking care of themselves, then we can't rightfully leave them in their own care, no?
Evander, I know you are playing Shit-Head's Advocate here so I am going to give you a little leeway here.
But really, if you are against socialized medicine, then being against government-help for drug addicts is an internally consistent position.
It also, in my opinion, makes you a heartless bastard with shit for ethics.
But, if you support government-run health care, drawing a line at helping addicts help themselves makes you a hypocritical asshole who needs to shut the fuck up.
So, take your own stand on it. Don't try to stir the pot by expressing poor opinions. Not all devils need advocates.
Smarten up.
The bolded was a given, I thought.
If you want my personal platform, I personally support socialized medicine, so OF COURSE I support helping junkies.
But I feel like too many people are simply overlooking the arena of "personal responsibility." Especially when you bring recidivists in to the equation.
So stop.
Evander, not all devils need advocates.
Being against socialized medicine (and by extension, being against rehab programs) is, in my opinion, an ethically bankrupt position that sane people shouldn't even be arguing about.
If it's not even the position you agree with (in fact, the opposite being the case) then I suggest that perhaps you should stop trying to present it and argue for it.
There's plenty of shit-headed libertarians on this forum who can argue how they aren't scumbags for themselves.
Let them do it.
Just because it's a debate forum (in part) doesn't mean you have to step into the vacuum of stupid opinions and fight for a shitty position just because nobody else is.
Maybe I don't think it is a morally bankrupt platform, just a wrong one, and I don't like seeing everyone gang up on it when there's no one here to defend it.
I can't stand when people who I agree with use the wrong arguments because I feel that it just sets back the causes that I stand for.
Medopine is on the right track here, with the fact that it is, inevitably, worth the cost to society because of the crime and costs that it inevitably prevents. THAT, as well as the fact that the pharmecutical and insurance industries have shown that they cannot be trusted to stay affordable, is the reason why socialized healthcare is needed. The only place where morality plays in to it is the idea of profiteering off of medicine.
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
Oh yeah, here's another one: apparently "national ID cards" means something different that I fail to understand in the US.
Yeah, it was hard for me to understand the opposition to national ID cards in the US.
It seems to me, as a non-American, that certain segments of the American population have an identity crisis whether their country is a loose confederacy of affiliated sovereign states, or an actual full nation with a real federal government.
A lot of "state's rights" issues seem to boil down to people on the state level having a problem with "the fed'rah gub'ment" enforcing things on them.
I find state's rights a confusing concept, as a Canadian, because we aren't a confederacy of ostensibly sovereign states.
That shit had to be explained to me when I was like 11 because I didn't understand how an individual state could over-ride federal law.
In Israel we don't even have anything stressed as intensely as provinces. Are you guys issued separate driver's licenses based on provinces? What 'what the hell's me about the state's right issue is:
1.) What makes a state any better as a vanguard against tyranny than a country? North Korea is the size of Pennsylvania, after all.
2.) If you're nationalistic enough to go "America, fuck yeah!" all the time and insist we're magnitudes better than the rest of the world (strong state's rights advocates often overlap with zealous nationalists, IME), shouldn't you want a unified front? A commonality in that greatness, to some extent?
Organichu on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
It's been scary how much non-thought Evander's been putting into his posts over the last few days. Here's a useful thought that for some reason has never even entered his head: Someone who has been able to kick their habit and return to health is a more useful member, and greater contributor to the rest of society than someone who can't get out of the downward spiral.
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
Organichu on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I find state's rights a confusing concept, as a Canadian, because we aren't a confederacy of ostensibly sovereign states.
That shit had to be explained to me when I was like 11 because I didn't understand how an individual state could over-ride federal law.
In Israel we don't even have anything stressed as intensely as provinces. Are you guys issued separate driver's licenses based on provinces? What 'what the hell's me about the state's right issue is:
1.) What makes a state any better as a vanguard against tyranny than a country? North Korea is the size of Pennsylvania, after all.
2.) If you're nationalistic enough to go "America, fuck yeah!" all the time and insist we're magnitudes better than the rest of the world (strong state's rights advocates often overlap with zealous nationalists, IME), shouldn't you want a unified front? A commonality in that greatness, to some extent?
I've always identified national IDs in the United States as a right-wing stance, so yes, it's consistent.
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
I don't know a lot of folks that actually think that...
I find state's rights a confusing concept, as a Canadian, because we aren't a confederacy of ostensibly sovereign states.
That shit had to be explained to me when I was like 11 because I didn't understand how an individual state could over-ride federal law.
In Israel we don't even have anything stressed as intensely as provinces. Are you guys issued separate driver's licenses based on provinces? What 'what the hell's me about the state's right issue is:
1.) What makes a state any better as a vanguard against tyranny than a country? North Korea is the size of Pennsylvania, after all.
2.) If you're nationalistic enough to go "America, fuck yeah!" all the time and insist we're magnitudes better than the rest of the world (strong state's rights advocates often overlap with zealous nationalists, IME), shouldn't you want a unified front? A commonality in that greatness, to some extent?
In Canada, driver's licenses and health cards are both under the purview of provincial agencies, and are thus issued provincially. If I have an Ontario driver's licence and I move to Alberta permanently, I am expected to have that transferred over and have an Alberta driver's licence issued to me. However, there's grandfather periods and stuff into play that, in theory, a legal driver should not be denied their license ever if they move to another province.
Same with health cards. If a person from Quebec injures themselves in Ontario and needs to be taken to an Ontario hospital, their Quebec-issued health card will still be taken as valid and they will be given treatment as normal.
What it means, in the latter case, is that the province of Quebec is going to foot the bill there in the end, not Ontario.
Provincial ID issues largely exist to enforce which taxpayers are paying for which services. Quebec health-care is paid for by Quebec taxpayers, and so on.
There are federal pieces of ID, though. Social insurance cards, for example, are under the purview of the HRDC (Human Resources Development Canada), which is a federal agency. As a result, those are issued at the federal level and are the same regardless of province.
Sarks I was talking about state's rights in general... work with me for a second here, though, since I don't know what you're referring to. Was there a push by Democrats to make a general ID card, without the state of residency being mentioned? I am confused.
Organichu on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
There are quite a few issues where I don't really have a firm stance, mostly out of ignorance or uncertainty, like animal rights or affirmative action or late term abortions.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
I don't know a lot of folks that actually think that...
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that once they start talking they're real people and you should have to keep them.
Sarks I was talking about state's rights in general... work with me for a second here, though, since I don't know what you're referring to. Was there a push by Democrats to make a general ID card, without the state of residency being mentioned? I am confused.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
In terms of pretty much everything here, I just don't see how anyone can view life as black and white, there are always factors that need to be considered.
coutts on
Pearl FC - 2535 1604 7594 // Black FC - 2494 3438 2717
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Huh. "Government wants to keep tabs on us!" is the usual stuff I hear against national ID cards, so it feels strange that it comes from the Republicans.
Echo on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Oh, here's a fun one. I absolutely do not give a damn about furries. As long as I don't step out my door in the morning and have to step over two of them wearing their furry costumes and having furry sex, it would be nearly impossible for me to care any less about who they are and what they're doing.
Nevertheless, it seems like anytime a topic even tangentially touches upon them, someone goes absolutely incandescent in their raaaaage against them, with a lot of other jumping in with the me-toos.
Posts
or when your taxpayer money goes to foster care for the kids that get taken away from meth heads
nah, it's certainly not in society's interest to help people beat their addictions to drugs
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were using drug crime itself as grounds for locking people up there. Locking folks up just for possession is indefensible, IMO.
I was talking SOLELY about the junkies who hurt themselves bad enough to need help.
what percentage of drug addicts are criminals?
I think that's an important point in distilling all of this
So stop.
Evander, not all devils need advocates.
Being against socialized medicine (and by extension, being against rehab programs) is, in my opinion, an ethically bankrupt position that sane people shouldn't even be arguing about.
If it's not even the position you agree with (in fact, the opposite being the case) then I suggest that perhaps you should stop trying to present it and argue for it.
There's plenty of shit-headed libertarians on this forum who can argue how they aren't scumbags for themselves.
Let them do it.
Just because it's a debate forum (in part) doesn't mean you have to step into the vacuum of stupid opinions and fight for a shitty position just because nobody else is.
Well, when this five-hundred pound homeless guy dies on the street, you'll probably be expecting someone to clean up the mess, right?
Not doing anything is probably cheaper. We lock them up because they cause problems in society we simply don't want to have. I'm guessing the large cost of imprisonment without rehabilitation comes from the fact that people relapse, and spend their life in and out of prison.
The easiest case that can be made is by arguing that a government has an obligation to protect its citizens and aid them when aid is required. Additionally and more pragmatically such programs can enable these trouble citizens to become productive in the future so you can see it like an investment in a better future for not only the people who directly take advantage of such programs but also the country that indirectly benefits from it.
But I don't think you have to take such a pragmatic approach. I think when a large organizational entity such as a government is in such a position to help people as our government is then it would be immoral and irresponsible not to take advantage of that. If you pass one in need of help on the side of a road, you must help them. I don't think it's unreasonable to actively seek these people out so as to more effectively help them, either.
Maybe I don't think it is a morally bankrupt platform, just a wrong one, and I don't like seeing everyone gang up on it when there's no one here to defend it.
I can't stand when people who I agree with use the wrong arguments because I feel that it just sets back the causes that I stand for.
Medopine is on the right track here, with the fact that it is, inevitably, worth the cost to society because of the crime and costs that it inevitably prevents. THAT, as well as the fact that the pharmecutical and insurance industries have shown that they cannot be trusted to stay affordable, is the reason why socialized healthcare is needed. The only place where morality plays in to it is the idea of profiteering off of medicine.
do I get a gold star sir?
Seriously, you don't need to give states the ability to segregate in order to adjust laws for different areas.
did you miss all of the posts were I said I was playing devil's advocate?
you know, the ones BEFORE you engaged me?
That shit had to be explained to me when I was like 11 because I didn't understand how an individual state could over-ride federal law.
do you think that means it's okay for you to pat me on the head and say I almost got it right?
Hey, if you play the devil's advocate you'll get a dose of the holy water too.
I would LOVE to see a higher level of INTELLIGENT federal involvement in our education curiculum.
I'm not talking about that NCLB bullshit. I'm talking about lesson plans, not exams.
oh, fuck off
I was just agreeing with you
I'm not arguing with your position, I'm against your behavior.
You are smarter than how you are behaving.
I've always been confused why late term abortions are more controversial. Nobody has a late term abortion for fun.
These abortions are done because the woman is in danger or the baby isn't viable. Or the 'mother' in question is a 10 year old who hasn't even had her first period yet and nobody knew was being molested so no one thought to consider pregnancy until she actually started showing.
Oddly enough these procedures were less controversial pre- Roe v Wade and the politicization of abortion care. While Roe increased access to early abortion care it contributed to a decrease in access to late abortion care.
To me late term abortions aren't controversial at all.
This is exactly how I see this issue.
Echo chamber, what what.
i hear they involve brass knuckles, burly lab assistants, and bullseyes drawn on baby heads
Yeah, it was hard for me to understand the opposition to national ID cards in the US.
It seems to me, as a non-American, that certain segments of the American population have an identity crisis whether their country is a loose confederacy of affiliated sovereign states, or an actual full nation with a real federal government.
A lot of "state's rights" issues seem to boil down to people on the state level having a problem with "the fed'rah gub'ment" enforcing things on them.
In Israel we don't even have anything stressed as intensely as provinces. Are you guys issued separate driver's licenses based on provinces? What 'what the hell's me about the state's right issue is:
1.) What makes a state any better as a vanguard against tyranny than a country? North Korea is the size of Pennsylvania, after all.
2.) If you're nationalistic enough to go "America, fuck yeah!" all the time and insist we're magnitudes better than the rest of the world (strong state's rights advocates often overlap with zealous nationalists, IME), shouldn't you want a unified front? A commonality in that greatness, to some extent?
What do you mean? What are they distracting from?
I'm referring to the stance taken by a lot of folks that abortion should be permitted at any time (or 'stage', I should say) for any reason. I'm not saying I firmly disagree- I just don't know.
I've always identified national IDs in the United States as a right-wing stance, so yes, it's consistent.
I don't know a lot of folks that actually think that...
In Canada, driver's licenses and health cards are both under the purview of provincial agencies, and are thus issued provincially. If I have an Ontario driver's licence and I move to Alberta permanently, I am expected to have that transferred over and have an Alberta driver's licence issued to me. However, there's grandfather periods and stuff into play that, in theory, a legal driver should not be denied their license ever if they move to another province.
Same with health cards. If a person from Quebec injures themselves in Ontario and needs to be taken to an Ontario hospital, their Quebec-issued health card will still be taken as valid and they will be given treatment as normal.
What it means, in the latter case, is that the province of Quebec is going to foot the bill there in the end, not Ontario.
Provincial ID issues largely exist to enforce which taxpayers are paying for which services. Quebec health-care is paid for by Quebec taxpayers, and so on.
There are federal pieces of ID, though. Social insurance cards, for example, are under the purview of the HRDC (Human Resources Development Canada), which is a federal agency. As a result, those are issued at the federal level and are the same regardless of province.
I mean, really?
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that once they start talking they're real people and you should have to keep them.
Dallas is fucking atrocious in this respect. God. Fucking. Awful. But nooooooo we need to make a nice lake side environment.
No, Republicans are generally the ones who want a national ID card. It was being pushed as a way of making us safer against potential terrorist attacks.
Huh. "Government wants to keep tabs on us!" is the usual stuff I hear against national ID cards, so it feels strange that it comes from the Republicans.
Nevertheless, it seems like anytime a topic even tangentially touches upon them, someone goes absolutely incandescent in their raaaaage against them, with a lot of other jumping in with the me-toos.