Real ID

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Real ID

Postby Lilira » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:43 pm

Minimum standards for ID across the US. Gee.. why would we want to like make it easier to track criminals by linking all the DMV's into one national database?

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070204/D8N2UVDG0.html
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:49 pm

for now if you are an illegal and need id, head to NC .. they will hook you up ..

we had a LOT of people trying to cash checks at the bank .. the matriculas and resident alien id cards were so bad they all headed to NC .. by the next week they all had *valid* nc drivers licenses .. complete with *old* issue dates and really legit wear and tear on the id so not to appear fake

i personally have no problem with a standard license
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:47 pm

Make everyone get a passport. Its already a national standard.
You need one of you want to go anywhere outside the country, so just make everyone get them.
Vaprak
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Vaprak » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:03 pm

Some points of this are good. However, the Real ID Act of 2005 was a measure that almost every state in the union has problems with, yet was attached to a millitary spending bill that no congressman or senator in their right mind would vote against.

The Real ID act will most likely make it easier for identify thieves to operate as even more personally identifiable information about you will be tied directly to your drivers license. It will even be available in an easy to read magnetic strip or RFID format so that every time your ID is scanned at the grocery store to back up that check you wrote, or at a night club or liquor store to verify your ID it will transmit all ofyour personal information back to their private database. It is expected that the "ID number" embedded in these cards will be your social security number. Also discretion is left entirely up to the Dept of Homeland Security to add any additional information or criteria for the Real ID card.

This is all something that was unabled to be passed in the senate on its own merit, and a similar bill just barely passed in the house by a narrow margin. The dirty scumsuckers had to tag it onto a military spending bill to get it to pass. What BS. This is just another pile of crap that we as citizens are expected to swallow in the name of "terrorism". Feh.

In a nutsshell, I'm 100% against the issuance of a federal ID from legal, personal rights, identity protection, and federal government should stay the hell off my lawn standpoints. Also it is expected that the cost of renewing your drivers license will go up from $10-30 to somewhere in the neighborhood of $90. It will end up costing the states roughly $53 billion dollars, none of which will be reimbursed by the Feds.
Vaprak, the Destroyer
-Formerly Tempus of HomelandMUD -- pre-merger
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:40 pm

Many, many other countries have national ID systems.

There does not seem to be a fundamental problem with the concept. Just bellyaching from states that don't want to spend the money to switch over.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:23 am

Teflor, the idea of a national id is unamerican. As Vaprak said, it goes against our rights to privacy.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:21 am

Lathander wrote:Teflor, the idea of a national id is unamerican. As Vaprak said, it goes against our rights to privacy.


What right to privacy?

Here is a link so you can look up our rights:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendments

Furthermore, it is NOT unamerican. We have many, many existing forms of national ID that arguably ENABLE us to be American (read: credit reporting). This legislation will only establish a standard amongst them.

It is better congress establish what a national ID should be, rather than to leave it in the hands of people like TransUnion or the Department of Defense. And don't have any illusions about having privacy at all even sitting at home right now.

They won't know anything more about you than they can't already find out.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:52 am

a LOT of personal info was (active not retired id) on my military ID already .. I still dont have a problem with it :)

we used our id's to sign iinto computers, get in secured areas, etc

not a problem at all .. maybe costly at first (i read in that provided link that it was 11billion .. *shrug*)

yet we dont bitch about the fact that our cars keys now cost 50-75$ to replace that little chip if you lose your key

whee technical upgrades :)

look at it like this .. you'd be easily identified in a car or plane crash if a cop could swipe your id if it survived and you didnt
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."



-Italian Proverb
Cirath
Sojourner
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Cirath » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:22 pm

Personally, I don't have a problem with this plan, so long as my driver's liscense renewal costs roughly the same after the change as it did before. Of course, since I deal in cash almost exclusively, and am perhaps the last person on earth that an identity thief would want to victimize, I may not be the best person to vioce an opinion on the matter.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:29 pm

YUP on the crash thing.. they also learn fast who you are if you carry a cell phone and have an ICE entry in your Contacts book.

Just got a new pretty cell after two years w/o and first thing hubby did was create an ICE entry. I should probably do the same but I've been more interested in figuring out how to DL ringtones. *rofl*

I'm still trying to figure out how a national ID would be an invasion of privacy? Your local DMV has your information, and any other state can get it if required. The Social Security Administration has your information for the purposes of deductions from your salary. Credit Bureaus are all independent but they have your information, and really anyone with your SSN these days can run a check on you.

Hell, if I have someone's address I can do a Google World and see their neighborhood via satellite.

By connecting everyone via one system, it might actually clean up some things like old records, duplicate licenses in different states etc. It would also help with relocation. We move to a new state and all we have to do is take in our old license and proof of new address and we can get it updated in the system. Heck, a national ID wouldn't even have to have our address on it if there's a way to swipe/scan it. Alabama has a funky looking barcode type thing on the back instead of the magnetic strip.

Granted, its dirty the way they're trying to slip it through, but I think its an excellent idea overall.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:11 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Lathander wrote:Teflor, the idea of a national id is unamerican. As Vaprak said, it goes against our rights to privacy.


What right to privacy?

Here is a link so you can look up our rights:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amendments




Wikipedia wrote:Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[1], was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Of course, Griswold ended up forming the basis for subsequent bad decisions such as Roe v. Wade. The point though is that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution protects a right to individual privacy, notwithstanding the fact that the text of the constitution says nothing of the sort.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:30 pm

Err... what's wrong with Roe V. Wade?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:19 pm

Woot!! New can of worms!!!! Quick grab the fishing hooks!
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:00 pm

You guys are aware that twelve-year-olds can hack RFID chips, right?
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:02 pm

Bill Clinton called - he wants his stupid commie universal ID plan back!
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Vaprak
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Vaprak » Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:37 am

If I'm forced to carry an ID that has all of my information embeded on a RFID chip, I will be switching to a lead-lined tin foil wallet, which consequently will match my hat.

RFID is SOoOOOOOOSOSOOSOSOSOSOSO insecure.
Vaprak, the Destroyer

-Formerly Tempus of HomelandMUD -- pre-merger
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:19 am

Sarvis wrote:Err... what's wrong with Roe V. Wade?


Hey, I'm personally pro-choice, but there is a shitload wrong with the actual supreme court case.

From a legal perspective, I think the constitutional basis for a universal right to abortions is dubious. I'm not going to start arguing constitutional jurisprudence in this forum, so just suffice to say that its my opinion.

The thing is, this was never about jurisprudence. It was always about politics, and unfortunately, judicial overreaching. Essentially, they took a political question out of the political sphere where it belonged, and imposed a one size fits all solution by judicial fiat. It is simply not democratic for unelected judges to legislate in this manner. If it was allowed to remain a political issue, eventually the question would have been resolved through direct elections of legislators either pro or con abortion. By making it into a constitutional rule, the only way to change it is to have partisan judges appointed, which is where we are now. This serves to further undermine the legal system and cause further judicial overreaching. A negative feedback loop.

In the absence of Roe v. Wade, abortions would not necessarily be illegal. Each state would determine the legality of abortions, and in all likelihood, most would retain the present system. I absolutely think that had Roe v. Wade gone the other way, most states would currently allow abortions, and more importantly, we as a nation would be past this stupid debate. It is natural for big political issues to occur, and it is natural for them to resolve themselves through direct elections of legislators. By taking the question out of the political sphere, the court created an endless controversy that cannot be conclusively resolved.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

stare

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:54 pm

Hey, I'm personally pro-life, but there is a shitload wrong with the actual supreme court case.

From a legal perspective, I think the constitutional basis for a universal right to abortions is dubious. I'm not going to start arguing constitutional jurisprudence in this forum, so just suffice to say that its my opinion.

The thing is, this was never about jurisprudence. It was always about politics, and unfortunately, judicial overreaching. Essentially, they took a political question out of the political sphere where it belonged, and imposed a one size fits all solution by judicial fiat. It is simply not democratic for unelected judges to legislate in this manner. If it was allowed to remain a political issue, eventually the question would have been resolved through direct elections of legislators either pro or con abortion. By making it into a constitutional rule, the only way to change it is to have partisan judges appointed, which is where we are now. This serves to further undermine the legal system and cause further judicial overreaching. A negative feedback loop.

In the absence of Roe v. Wade, abortions would probably be illegal. Each state would determine the legality of abortions, and in all likelihood, most would go against the present system. I absolutely think that had Roe v. Wade gone the other way, most states would currently disallow abortions, and more importantly, we as a nation would be past this stupid debate. It is natural for big political issues to occur, and it is natural for them to resolve themselves through direct elections of legislators. By taking the question out of the political sphere, the court created an endless controversy that cannot be conclusively resolved.


Very well said!
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:53 pm

Corth wrote:From a legal perspective, I think the constitutional basis for a universal right to abortions is dubious. I'm not going to start arguing constitutional jurisprudence in this forum, so just suffice to say that its my opinion.

The thing is, this was never about jurisprudence. It was always about politics, and unfortunately, judicial overreaching. Essentially, they took a political question out of the political sphere where it belonged, and imposed a one size fits all solution by judicial fiat. It is simply not democratic for unelected judges to legislate in this manner. If it was allowed to remain a political issue, eventually the question would have been resolved through direct elections of legislators either pro or con abortion. By making it into a constitutional rule, the only way to change it is to have partisan judges appointed, which is where we are now. This serves to further undermine the legal system and cause further judicial overreaching. A negative feedback loop.

In the absence of Roe v. Wade, abortions would not necessarily be illegal. Each state would determine the legality of abortions, and in all likelihood, most would retain the present system. I absolutely think that had Roe v. Wade gone the other way, most states would currently allow abortions, and more importantly, we as a nation would be past this stupid debate. It is natural for big political issues to occur, and it is natural for them to resolve themselves through direct elections of legislators. By taking the question out of the political sphere, the court created an endless controversy that cannot be conclusively resolved.


Objection, Your Honor--speculation. :wink:

I think it's important to note that most Republican-minded folk (and I respect Corth very much because he backs up his arguments, generally--and it helps that he's somewhat of a Rockefeller Republican if I'm not mistaken) think judges overreach in the exercise of their powers, while most Liberal-minded folk (hi!) don't necessarily agree that such types of rulings are such a bad thing--ie. it's two opinions, not facts.

Corth believes more in the original intent of the Constitution whereas I believe it's silly to expect men 230 years ago to know what our world would be like today. One could say I'm the realist of the two of us. I'm more of the opinion that without Roe v. Wade, some ultra-conservative faction would've run some anti-abortion law through Congress sometime in the last ten years, if not sooner, and things would be decidedly different from Corth's take on a world without Roe v. Wade--but that's speculation, just as I noted on Corth's post above. Luckily (IMHO), we don't have to worry about that at this point in time.

BTW, Corth, Adriorn just plagiarized you :P
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:54 pm

Adriorn,

That too. :)

Really, its impossible to know what would happen in the absence of Roe v. Wade, except that the ultimate decision would be made in each locale, and would reflect the values of the people that lived there. If you are in favor of democracy, you need to be prepared to tolerate what you may consider a bad decision, so long as it is a democratic one. That goes for both sides of the debate. It also says something about the perceived (lack of) legitimacy of a rule imposed by unelected judicial fiat.

Birile,

I'm not so sure its a good thing, whatever your position in the political spectrum, to be resolving ideological arguments in the courts. The end result are rules which lack a perception of legitimacy, and the undermining of the legal system as a neutral and respected body. For instance, look how much damage Bush v. Gore did to the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the presidency. When judicial overreaching goes the "wrong" way, liberals are not happy. And then, we have a president who is accused of stealing an election.

By the way, I purposefully limited my legal criticism of the case to a one sentence opinion that I disagree with the basis for the decision. The fact that the case was decided wrong is besides the point in this discussion imho. My philosophy of constitutional interpretation is irrelevant unless I am interpreting the constitution.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:53 pm

I was really just curious about Corth's opinion on t he case, and didn't want to start an abortion debate...

Corth wrote:If you are in favor of democracy, you need to be prepared to tolerate what you may consider a bad decision, so long as it is a democratic one.


Something Libertarians and Conservatives seem to be spectacularly bad at. I think you're overly idealistic to think that the debate would be settled by now. If any states did begin legalizing abortions Bush would have been pushing an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in '04, rather than just an anti-gay marriage amendment.

Just because democratically elected leaders decided something instead of judges doesn't give it the legitimacy you'd like to believe it does. Many Libertarians still consider taxes to be theft, yet I'm pretty sure it isn't judges who wrote our tax laws!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:10 pm

Birile wrote:BTW, Corth, Adriorn just plagiarized you :P


OMG I so did not plagiarize!

* goes back and edits old post *

(Corth, REAL ID, www.torilmud.dynds.org, TorilMUD Discussion Forum - General Discussion, 2007.)

Corth wrote:Really, its impossible to know what would happen in the absence of Roe v. Wade, except that the ultimate decision would be made in each locale, and would reflect the values of the people that lived there. If you are in favor of democracy, you need to be prepared to tolerate what you may consider a bad decision, so long as it is a democratic one. That goes for both sides of the debate. It also says something about the perceived (lack of) legitimacy of a rule imposed by unelected judicial fiat.


I completely agree. And that is how it should be, ideally. If the country were to elect a moron to be President, if the majority elected him, I would not complain. The topic of abortion, for me is very different from the rest; taxes, healthcare, war, etc., all are of a different nature in my mind. I can argue with "leftists" all day about these, and really not get frustrated or upset at them. Usually, it really is just about different valid opinions. I just have no grasp as to why abortion is legal.

Abortion is murder. It is murder that has been "disguised" with the notion of "control of my body" and that the "fetus" isn't really "alive". This has about as much to do with "control of my body" as me going out and molesting a "barely" 1 year old baby. While the infant might not have the cognitive functions and/or memory to suffer any traumatic experience from the molestation, no one would ever contemplate actually permitting it. To me this is as disgusting as abortion, without the killing involved.


I'd go on, but I just remembered this was about IDs or something...

Oops. Eep.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:37 pm

It's too bad our privacy still isn't protected from credit agencies or traffic cops.

I don't think it's possible, still, for anyone to say that we would be any less secure in our privacy with a national ID system, or any more secure without it.

There are many benefits to having a national ID system to protect your privacy, offering such benefits as:

- heightened resistance to identity theft
- heightened resistance to falsification or forgery
- fewer points of proof of identity (no more digging out utility bills)

Specific downsides to a national ID are limited and easily systematically avoided. You can say it takes away your privacy, but can you tell me how? I doubt it. And even if there are, it can easily be rectified.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:24 pm

re: Abortion
When presented with a controversial issue such as this, I have to side with personal freedom. If you're anti-abortion, don't have an abortion, it's that simple. I have no problem with respecting varied and differing opinions. It's unfortunate, however, that there are those who seek to limit my freedom because of their own personal morality.

re: Abortion is murder
So is war. So is capital punishment. Politically speaking, it's odd to me that the same party that opposes abortion favors inflated defense spending and the bloody occupation of a foreign country. If you want to play the murder card, and you support America deploying troops to any country for any reason other than direct defense of our own homeland soil, then you are a hypocrite and I have a hard time valuing your opinion. Likewise, if you oppose abortion and support capital punishment, how can I take you seriously?

re: National ID
Those who oppose the ID, are you against the idea of a national ID system or are you opposed to the use of hackable RFID tags? I don't see anything inherently wrong with a national identification system... I don't think it inherently violates my privacy or my personal liberty. The use of a hackable RFID transmitter is something else, I have some objections to the implementation they're thinking of using. On the other hand, I think a lot of the RFID paranoia is unfounded... you're about as likely to get phished by someone with a portable RFID scanner as you are to lose your ATM card to a fraudulent card reader. It could happen, and it does happen, but you can take steps to avoid it if you have two brain cells to rub together.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:25 pm

Sarvis wrote:If any states did begin legalizing abortions Bush would have been pushing an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in '04, rather than just an anti-gay marriage amendment.


Quite possibly.. which is exactly the point. Amending the constitution is the democratic way of changing it. It is so difficult to amend the constitution, that its really almost impossible to do so unless a clear political consensus has been reached. The other way to change the constitution is for unelected judges to legislate from the bench. Which one is preferable?

Its interesting that you bring up gay marriage because its a particularly good example of what I am talking about. Imagine that the Supreme Court were to issue a decision tomorrow saying that gay marriage violates the constitution. All of a sudden, the same people who applaud the courage of the court's stance in Roe v. Wade would abhor this new ruling. It would, of course, be another example of extreme judicial overreaching. There is nothing in the constitution to support such a position. Instead of attempting to democratically elect legislators pro or con the issue, partisans would have to resort to packing the court with partisan judges. The judicial process is thus politicized and subverted.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:42 pm

Corth wrote:Its interesting that you bring up gay marriage because its a particularly good example of what I am talking about. Imagine that the Supreme Court were to issue a decision tomorrow saying that gay marriage violates the constitution. All of a sudden, the same people who applaud the courage of the court's stance in Roe v. Wade would abhor this new ruling.


Perhaps, but all I am saying is that our reaction wouldn't be different if Bush had passed the amendment. We'd just be screaming about Republicans instead of activist judges.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:15 pm

Birile wrote:Corth ... he's somewhat of a Rockefeller Republican if I'm not mistaken

You're mistaken. Corth is a Scalia Republican, a conservative who, when he deviates from the usual conservative positions, does so in a libertarian direction.

Rockefeller was ... there's not much comparison in the Republican party today, since he was liberal for his day, and the center has shifted rightward over the last 30 years. You could make the argument that in his second term, Bill Clinton was a Rockefeller Republican.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:43 pm

Gurns wrote:
Birile wrote:Corth ... he's somewhat of a Rockefeller Republican if I'm not mistaken

You're mistaken. Corth is a Scalia Republican, a conservative who, when he deviates from the usual conservative positions, does so in a libertarian direction.

Rockefeller was ... there's not much comparison in the Republican party today, since he was liberal for his day, and the center has shifted rightward over the last 30 years. You could make the argument that in his second term, Bill Clinton was a Rockefeller Republican.


Don't tarnish my views of Corth. :cry:
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:36 pm

Heh, actually I consider myself a straightforward Libertarian, although I probably wouldn't argue too much with Gurns' characterization of my political stance. I doubt however that Scalia is in favor of legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and abortion rights.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests