Increasingly ruled by rules

[quote name='depascal22']I thought I was going down the slippery slope. I assume you're OK with showing an ID to buy a gun or a 40 of Ol' English but it's not OK to show ID when buying something that is commonly used to manufacture crystal meth?[/quote]

Let's travel down your same road of slippery slopes - Lithium Batteries are commonly used to make Meth. Should you be carded for those?

Plastic tubing used in fish aquariums - show your ID?

Propane - ready to get carded?

And - as I mentioned before, it's no where near as simple as flashing your ID to the clerk so they can verify your birthdate - In Illinois, (at least - most states are likely the same), you don't just show your ID. The clerk takes the ID from your possession, records whatever information they want from the ID, then give it back to you. If you're okay with random people doing this, then prove it. Scan your Driver's License and post it in your next reply. I look forward to it.

[quote name='gareman']Are you implying that your previous reasons were not legitimate?[/quote]

Ohhh... this must be one of those "gotcha" moments Myke is always going on about....

Except that I haven't actually posted any previous reasons.

What I posted are, to a varying degree, valid concerns that some people have with the ID requirements to buy a legal, non-prescription medication.

[quote name='gareman']The answer most opponents of poll IDing is to offer a free photo voter ID, and still have people present an ID to vote.[/QUOTE]

You'd think that, eh?
Check that story I linked to earlier...
In his ruling rejecting the first version of the law, a federal judge in Rome, Ga., likened the photo ID requirement to the segregation-era poll taxes because of the fee associated with obtaining a valid ID. That fee was waived in the latest version of the law. Regardless, a Superior Court judge in Atlanta threw it out last week, calling it unconstitutional and an undue burden on voters.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's travel down your same road of slippery slopes - Lithium Batteries are commonly used to make Meth. Should you be carded for those?

Plastic tubing used in fish aquariums - show your ID?

Propane - ready to get carded?

And - as I mentioned before, it's no where near as simple as flashing your ID to the clerk so they can verify your birthdate - In Illinois, (at least - most states are likely the same), you don't just show your ID. The clerk takes the ID from your possession, records whatever information they want from the ID, then give it back to you. If you're okay with random people doing this, then prove it. Scan your Driver's License and post it in your next reply. I look forward to it.[/QUOTE]

You card for one of the ingredients because there are two main uses for pseudo-ephedrine. Get rid of colds and make meth. If you buy mass quantities of Sudafed, you've either got something more serious than a cold or......I'll let you fill in the blank there.

Besides, pharmacists have much more incriminating information than your address and signature. That case of the clap? They know all about it. But if you equate posting my ID on a gaming internet forum with a pharmacist (or tech) taking down your information in private, then you're a fucking moron.

As for the other items, they're not nearly as crucial as pseudo-ephedrine. Also, they're used for many other innocent purposes. Propane is universally used to heat things. Plastic tubing, well, that's not hard to figure out.

And why stop there? You completely omitted ammonia, lye, and iodine crystals. We could card for all those or we could card for the one thing that's only sold at pharmacies and is much easier to track and control.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Besides, pharmacists have much more incriminating information than your address and signature. That case of the clap? They know all about it. But if you equate posting my ID on a gaming internet forum with a pharmacist (or tech) taking down your information in private, then you're a fucking moron.[/quote]

Yeah, I pretty much knew you wouldn't do it.

I'll tell you a secret though - the person behind the counter isn't always a "Pharmacy Tech". Just a regular register jockey who doesn't care about the job or you. Just looking for their next paycheck. Perhaps that next paycheck will come from using your identity?

As for the other items, they're not nearly as crucial as pseudo-ephedrine. Also, they're used for many other innocent purposes. Propane is universally used to heat things. Plastic tubing, well, that's not hard to figure out.

And why stop there? You completely omitted ammonia, lye, and iodine crystals. We could card for all those or we could card for the one thing that's only sold at pharmacies and is much easier to track and control.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying, is the ID-for-Sudafed thing isn't about making things safer, per-say - it's about making things easier on law enforcement? I mean, if that's the case, why not just let the police lock us all up now?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']


So, what you're saying, is the ID-for-Sudafed thing isn't about making things safer, per-say - it's about making things easier on law enforcement? I mean, if that's the case, why not just let the police lock us all up now?[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what all IDing is for...making things easier for cops?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, what you're saying, is the ID-for-Sudafed thing isn't about making things safer, per-say - it's about making things easier on law enforcement? I mean, if that's the case, why not just let the police lock us all up now?[/QUOTE]

You argue really good.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, I pretty much knew you wouldn't do it.[/QUOTE]

What does my Driver's License have anything to do with this? The people at Walgreen's aren't putting pictures of Driver's Licenses on the web with the title "Loves to buy Sudafed. Please see this man or woman for cheap meth."

Again, you've proven to be a moron and now you're trying to e-bully me into doing something really stupid. For what? To prove a shitty ass point in yet another shitty ass thread. fuck off, dickhead. You really are a stupid ass Wal-Mart flunky and I hope I get banned for saying it. I bet you always win your arguments with the mentally disabled cart boys. Oh wait, you're the mentally disable cart boy.
 
Now, i'm typically not one to pick on errors in grammar, but anyone who rants on the internet calling someone else a "mentally disable cart boy"... well... that one speaks for itself.

depascal - are you 100% certian the clerk behind the counter isn't posting your Driver's License information on the internet or otherwise giving it out?

I don't push carts at Walmart - I sell cell phones. Part of the job entails using the customer's ID/Social Security information to run credit checks. I had a shady looking guy once offer me "good money" in exchange for collecting this data for him. Now, I got management, who called the cops with the guy's License Plates, but... man, minimum wage counter jockeys... you never know when one of them might like a chance to earn some "good money" with little-to-no effort?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']
I don't push carts at Walmart - I sell cell phones. Part of the job entails using the customer's ID/Social Security information to run credit checks. I had a shady looking guy once offer me "good money" in exchange for collecting this data for him. Now, I got management, who called the cops with the guy's License Plates, but... man, minimum wage counter jockeys... you never know when one of them might like a chance to earn some "good money" with little-to-no effort?[/QUOTE]


I am not saying that scenario couldn't happen to anyone, but the chances of that happening compared to any other way of someone obtaining my personal info is so relatively low that there is no point for me to even worry about whether someone IDing me for smokes at the gas station is selling it to some shady looking guy.
 
[quote name='gareman']I am not saying that scenario couldn't happen to anyone, but the chances of that happening compared to any other way of someone obtaining my personal info is so relatively low that there is no point for me to even worry about whether someone IDing me for smokes at the gas station is selling it to some shady looking guy.[/QUOTE]

You can't really compare being carded for alcohol or cigarettes to being ID'd for Sudafed. There's a huge difference - in that, when getting carded for alcohol or such, the clerk doesn't need to record any information from your ID. They just need to look at the birth date and the photo (perhaps, maybe, enter the birth date into their register). When buying Sudafed (in Illinois, at least), the clerk gets to take your ID behind the counter, copy down any and whatever information they want, however they want, and hand it back to you while you have no knowledge of what they're going to do with it. Now, granted, the gas station attendant could have a photographic memory - but the odds of everything coming together so perfectly just aren't very high. What are the odds that some minimum wage counter jockey would be interested in scoring a couple extra thousand dollars just for photo copying a few papers?
 
UncleBob does make a good point about unnecessary recording of information and how that can be dangerous. Whether its idenitity theft or just someone with a grudge, you don't want your personal info to fall into the wrong hands.
 
Somehow I doubt the return on investment on a 24 ct. package of Sudafed is worth the cost and amount of work it would take to make meth. The people who make meth were no doubt stealing it, not buying it. So, recording information from buyers and keeping it behind the counter probably doesn't thwart anything except the shoplifting of the product.

I say thank god the police now have this tool to save us from grandmas who buy more than one package of sudafed in a calendar month. Those old people are ruining neighborhoods all across the country. Goddamn old people. Bring on the Death Panels!
 
[quote name='Ruined']UncleBob does make a good point about unnecessary recording of information and how that can be dangerous. Whether its idenitity theft or just someone with a grudge, you don't want your personal info to fall into the wrong hands.[/QUOTE]

You're retarded if you think it's not public information already.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You're retarded if you think it's not public information already.[/QUOTE]

Really?

Then post a scan of your Driver's License.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Somehow I doubt the return on investment on a 24 ct. package of Sudafed is worth the cost and amount of work it would take to make meth. The people who make meth were no doubt stealing it, not buying it. So, recording information from buyers and keeping it behind the counter probably doesn't thwart anything except the shoplifting of the product.

I say thank god the police now have this tool to save us from grandmas who buy more than one package of sudafed in a calendar month. Those old people are ruining neighborhoods all across the country. Goddamn old people. Bring on the Death Panels![/QUOTE]

LOL.

You're not even trying.

Go back to your Palin audiobook.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really?

Then post a scan of your Driver's License.[/QUOTE]

First, you gotta post a pic of you in that silly little shit covered blue smock. Make sure you get that pic with your boss fucking you in the ass in the cart corral too.
 
So, Uncle Bob just illustrated a beautiful fact. We're getting all pissed off about the information they collect for this but we willingly give MORE information for just about everything else. Last time I checked, they don't take your social security number down when you want to buy some Sudafed but they do for cell phone contracts. Again, what's the real argument here?
 
Pre-paid cell phones don't require a social security number.

Contract cell phones only require a social security number if you want service without a deposit (based on your individual credit history, of course). Otherwise, you can sign up, but the carrier will require a deposit.

A line of cell phone service is, basically, a line of credit. In exchange for the line of credit to be extended to you, you are asked to provide info in regards to your identity or to put up a good faith deposit.
 
[quote name='camoor']LOL.

You're not even trying.

Go back to your Palin audiobook.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha. You think I like Sarah Palin. That's beyond laziness.
 
[quote name='depascal22']No bmull. You think like Sarah Palin.[/QUOTE]

So....he doesn't think? Or, he DOES think, but its in terms of cookie cutter Republican talking points (lower taxes, smaller gov't, free market, etc.)
 
I didn't read the OP's article, but perusing through this thread I found it interesting how much we write off the validity of a statement because people stumble into an issue or don't present their argument properly.

I worked at a drug store in Ohio where we started collecting this information a few years back and I remember a few customers upset with it. The thing is, we did have an issue with people stealing Delsym(?) to get high off of it. And we did have law enforcement stop in to ask to review the books we kept on psuedophedrine(?) at least once, so I did see the law put to use first hand.

Now the unfortunate thing is that customers no longer knew where to find the OTC medications that they relied on and companies began developing pseudophedrine free formulas which I remember people complaining about not being effective. So even if this guy rants like a total douche, the underlying point is how far will we allow ourselves to feel inconvenienced to feel protected?

I don't have an opinion on the matter I care to share, but as I grow older I stop and think about things that I never used to care about before, i.e. how many Americans understand what exactly is going on with things like the healthcare plan or stimulus plans before they were pushed through legislation? No one should be told not to question something if they don't know what's going on. There's people that can argue like gang busters but it doesn't make them always right. And furthermore, just because someone can't argue their reasoning as well as someone else doesn't make their thought process unjustified. Just my two cents I wanted to toss into this thread. ;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']So....he doesn't think? Or, he DOES think, but its in terms of cookie cutter Republican talking points (lower taxes, smaller gov't, free market, etc.)[/QUOTE]

No, no those aren't talking points, they're called PRINCIPLES. You would know that if you had them.
 
Of course they're talking points, she offers nothing specific other than the general 'oh well i'd lower taxes so people have more money instead of givin it to the government.' I don't agree with those talking points straight up, so if that means I have no principles, thats fine by me.

Cool ad hominem attack though. I like!
 
[quote name='IRHari']So....he doesn't think? Or, he DOES think, but its in terms of cookie cutter Republican talking points (lower taxes, smaller gov't, free market, etc.)[/QUOTE]

And these things are bad?
 
[quote name='Ruined']And these things are bad?[/QUOTE]

They've enabled our economy to grow to the most powerful in the world in the past. Unfortunately, some people seem to either not realize this, or actually think it's a bad thing. It's also funny how they are described as "Republican talking points" when throughout most of our history Democrats have also subscribed to these ideas, and currently neither major party subscribes to them.
 
[quote name='Ruined']And these things are bad?[/QUOTE]

They are meaningless.

Except perhaps as a marketing strategy.
 
lower taxes is a talking point because it's a comparative terms that's never discussed in comparative terms. It's considered it's own self-sustaining concept.

So when we keep in mind the numerous tax cuts the wealthy in this country have (speaking statistically as the top 10% of income earners in the US, currently those earning $100K and up) experienced since 1980 (such as the *50%* cut in marginal tax rates under Reagan that has never been brought back up), that's not considered.

Taxes are just "too high," and those who espouse those ideas never point to anything specific when asked what the line of comparison is. Because, again, it's a talking point, a vapid battle cry (like "Who Dey!" in Cincinnati, for instance ;)) that contains no substance, no depth, and is its own self-sustaining idea.

Additionally, the same folks acknowledge that some degree of taxation is necessary, so there's a huge fuzzy arbitrary area between "lower taxes" and "taxes are necessary" that people who espouse this idea cannot begin to reconcile the contradictions of.

Further in establishing that it's a useless talking point, it's used as a proper policy response in any economic situation. Tax revenues are up and we're running a budget surplus? Cut taxes, you're clearly taking too much! We're running a deficit? Cut taxes, we need to stimulate the economy! What emphasizes that it's a talking point that has no depth of consideration behind it is the 100% consistency with which people support the notion, no matter the current circumstances they face. And they'll tell you as much. bmulligan, ruined, and perhaps even you, elprincipe, have never and will never see a tax cut you didn't like.

And that's quite silly and revealing of how ideological and unprincipled such a perspective truly is - when you would never dare consider any alternative no matter the circumstances or evidence you're presented with.
 
Myke brings up a good point.

I think the "lower taxes" talking point is symbolic for basically reducing the government's role, power, and duties. Because you really can't lower taxes much while maintaining the monstrosity we do.

The war of political ideas in this country can mostly be distilled down to the war of justifying the existence or extermination of various government costs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']lower taxes is a talking point because it's a comparative terms that's never discussed in comparative terms. It's considered it's own self-sustaining concept.

So when we keep in mind the numerous tax cuts the wealthy in this country have (speaking statistically as the top 10% of income earners in the US, currently those earning $100K and up) experienced since 1980 (such as the *50%* cut in marginal tax rates under Reagan that has never been brought back up), that's not considered.

Taxes are just "too high," and those who espouse those ideas never point to anything specific when asked what the line of comparison is. Because, again, it's a talking point, a vapid battle cry (like "Who Dey!" in Cincinnati, for instance ;)) that contains no substance, no depth, and is its own self-sustaining idea.

Additionally, the same folks acknowledge that some degree of taxation is necessary, so there's a huge fuzzy arbitrary area between "lower taxes" and "taxes are necessary" that people who espouse this idea cannot begin to reconcile the contradictions of.

Further in establishing that it's a useless talking point, it's used as a proper policy response in any economic situation. Tax revenues are up and we're running a budget surplus? Cut taxes, you're clearly taking too much! We're running a deficit? Cut taxes, we need to stimulate the economy! What emphasizes that it's a talking point that has no depth of consideration behind it is the 100% consistency with which people support the notion, no matter the current circumstances they face. And they'll tell you as much. bmulligan, ruined, and perhaps even you, elprincipe, have never and will never see a tax cut you didn't like.

And that's quite silly and revealing of how ideological and unprincipled such a perspective truly is - when you would never dare consider any alternative no matter the circumstances or evidence you're presented with.[/QUOTE]

1. I espouse (much) lower taxes and am willing to get into details. Don't confuse me with political types who want to have their cake and eat it too (lower taxes but still bribe people with tax money).

2. You're right that many people (Republicans) who advocate lower taxes advocate that regardless. OTOH, people who advocate higher taxes also advocate that way regardless (the economy is down, government needs more money = raise taxes; or the economy is up, it won't hurt to raise taxes and then the government can do X, Y and Z). So this goes both ways.

3. It's hard to see a tax cut I don't like only because IMHO taxes are about 4-5 times too high right now. From that perspective, it's easy to like tax cuts. However, that doesn't mean I always want to cut taxes; if that were my position, logically I'd be in favor of eliminating taxes altogether, which would not be advisable if we wish to continue having a government.

4. As for a progressive tax system, I'm strongly in favor of that, and in favor of making it more progressive. When you look at this

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

you can't help being alarmed at the concentration of wealth in this country, and you can't help feeling that since the government caused the rich to become even richer, it needs to do something to stop or even reverse that trend.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']IMHO taxes are about 4-5 times too high right now.[/QUOTE]

Based on what? You've provided some kind of comparison, but I'd like you to elaborate on this baseline claim - how did you come to the conclusion that taxes could be reduced 80-87% (if they're 4-5 times too high, they'd need to be reduced by those percentages to be acceptable to you)?

If you've thought through and identified tax programs that shouldn't be funded (e.g. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere, Ben Nelson's shakedown for 10 years of medicare funding for fucking Nebraska), then you have a point. But if "4-5 times too high" is not thought through thoroughly or an arbitrary ratio you selected based on gut feeling, then you're really resembling my claim more than standing in defiance of it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Based on what? You've provided some kind of comparison, but I'd like you to elaborate on this baseline claim - how did you come to the conclusion that taxes could be reduced 80-87% (if they're 4-5 times too high, they'd need to be reduced by those percentages to be acceptable to you)?

If you've thought through and identified tax programs that shouldn't be funded (e.g. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere, Ben Nelson's shakedown for 10 years of medicare funding for fucking Nebraska), then you have a point. But if "4-5 times too high" is not thought through thoroughly or an arbitrary ratio you selected based on gut feeling, then you're really resembling my claim more than standing in defiance of it.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough you should ask. I base my ballpark figure on the history of our country.

fig-3.gif


As you can see, up until the Great Depression, the federal government (that is what I'm talking about) spent less than 5% of GDP. We are now up to five or more times that. This is due to the federal government being involved in a whole host of areas it should have nothing to do with, such as Social Security, Medicare, education, etc.

As part and parcel of this development of the increased size and scope of the federal government, it has become much more powerful than state governments, even in areas that traditionally had been left to the states. This desperately needs to be reversed per our Constitution and per good governance (does anyone really want to argue that the federal Department of Education can do a better job with educational choices than your local school board?).

So the federal government needs to divest itself of some responsibilities, returning them to the states or localities. There are also unbelievable amounts of waste and corruption in Washington that need to be addressed. And even legitimate areas of expenditure, such as defense, are far too bloated and need to be cut significantly.

Obviously, because of this

Federal+Debt+%25+GDP.jpg


Such changes would need to be made intelligently and with an eye toward removing the massive burden placed upon our country by our despicable political parties and their leaders. But we need to start soon; in 10 years, if we do nothing, interest payments on the debt will amount to as much as the "stimulus" bill last year (~$800 billion), only every year.

EDIT: you mentioned the "bridge to nowhere" and what has become known as the "Cornhusker kickback." While these are outrageous abuses of taxpayer money, in real terms they are relatively small potatoes. You don't get a reduction in the size of the federal government that I am advocating by cutting a few $100 million programs, however deserving they are to be cut. Nelson's deal in particular, as well as Mary Landrieu's and a number of other senators', is actually even more alarming due to the precedent they set of corruption being normal in the legislative process, as enunciated by Harry Reid (who himself, of course, obtained special favors for Nevada in the bill). And provisions like the Nebraska one are also blatantly unconstitutional.
 
Stevens and Nelson's stickup jobs are just two minor examples of bill riders that are a structural deficiency of our federal legislature. Now, I understand philosophically why line-item vetos were considered unconstitutional under Clinton (because they *are* constitutional, and W. Bush got that, too, which is why he used "presidential signing statements" to semantically get the same result as a line-item veto). But those are two examples of what I believe to be a systemic drain on our resources. You know me - I'm super liberal, I'm "just to the right of Karl Marx" according to my mother (;)) - I support federal funding of education, of the arts, of health care, and so forth. But that doesn't equate to me thinking that gov't spending can't be reduced. Preventing these parasitic riders from latching onto legislation after they've been voted on is something absolutely crucial to do.

Your charts also show something about spending as it pertains to militarization. There are huge spikes in spending around the civil war and both world wars. Military spending as a portion of federal output has increased not just commensurate with federal spending, but as an overall portion of that spending. The cold war saw the emergence of the "prepare for war to maintain peace" philosophy of the military-industrial complex. We have also seen spending on corrections increase several times over, while quality of care (number of program opportunities, ratio of probation officers to probationers/parolees) declines (well, the ratio increased, but you know what I mean).

We have to pay to maintain the dozens of overseas military bases we have as well.

The world of 2010 is more complex than the world of 1920. I don't disagree that federal spending should be cut - I don't have a general grasp on what I think it should be, and applaud the backing of your perspective with longitudinal trends. You're thinking and learning for yourself, making you one of a kind in this day and age, let alone the vs forums. But I think we'd probably have some profound disagreements in terms of identifying where and to what extent we should reduce/eliminate federal spending programs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stevens and Nelson's stickup jobs are just two minor examples of bill riders that are a structural deficiency of our federal legislature. Now, I understand philosophically why line-item vetos were considered unconstitutional under Clinton (because they *are* constitutional, and W. Bush got that, too, which is why he used "presidential signing statements" to semantically get the same result as a line-item veto). But those are two examples of what I believe to be a systemic drain on our resources. You know me - I'm super liberal, I'm "just to the right of Karl Marx" according to my mother (;)) - I support federal funding of education, of the arts, of health care, and so forth. But that doesn't equate to me thinking that gov't spending can't be reduced. Preventing these parasitic riders from latching onto legislation after they've been voted on is something absolutely crucial to do.

Your charts also show something about spending as it pertains to militarization. There are huge spikes in spending around the civil war and both world wars. Military spending as a portion of federal output has increased not just commensurate with federal spending, but as an overall portion of that spending. The cold war saw the emergence of the "prepare for war to maintain peace" philosophy of the military-industrial complex. We have also seen spending on corrections increase several times over, while quality of care (number of program opportunities, ratio of probation officers to probationers/parolees) declines (well, the ratio increased, but you know what I mean).

We have to pay to maintain the dozens of overseas military bases we have as well.

The world of 2010 is more complex than the world of 1920. I don't disagree that federal spending should be cut - I don't have a general grasp on what I think it should be, and applaud the backing of your perspective with longitudinal trends. You're thinking and learning for yourself, making you one of a kind in this day and age, let alone the vs forums. But I think we'd probably have some profound disagreements in terms of identifying where and to what extent we should reduce/eliminate federal spending programs.[/QUOTE]

I think we have broad agreement on many things, actually, other than the overall scope of government spending.

I agree with you on military spending and the need for such spending to be cut. We just can't afford to spend more than the next top 20 countries combined on our military. We don't have the money, and even if we did there is a ton of waste in military spending (see: billions unaccounted for in Iraq, acquisition programs inserted as earmarks by influential congresscritters even though the Pentagon doesn't want what they're pushing, even the famous old '80s $1,000 toilet seats).

Signing statements are another area in which I completely agree that the president has acted (for some time now, but Bush II took it to another level) outside of constitutional bounds. These things need to be set right. Presidential abuses of power have now become the norm more than ever, and it's rather scary. At least when Congress abuses power, they have 434 other members to help check them, and even the speaker of the House and majority leader in the Senate can't wield massive power themselves. The president's power is too large, especially in matters of war and peace, for the current situation to be acceptable.
 
looking at the chemical soup of inactive ingredients that make up sudafed (or most otc drugs) it seems scarier that people are more worried when government prevents them from buying rather than getting angry at government for not exactly being the most diligent approver of chemical goods for sale in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top