Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 469
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Nonsense. The prescription would not be issued without an ID.
    No it isn't nonsense, at least in Australia you can pickup prescriptions on behalf of someone else. Not sure whether the same hold true in the US or not.


    YES! I fly often in my job.

    The TSA is Gestapo-like in the USA.
    OK, I'll take your word for it. So it seems we have established that those people who cannot get photo ID aren't racking up many frequent flyer miles.
    meep meep

  2. #32
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    OK, I'll take your word for it. So it seems we have established that those people who cannot get photo ID aren't racking up many frequent flyer miles.
    I've only flown with check-in luggage in the US but my general impression is that in general the security is stricter there than here. After going through baggage check in the US you still have to present ID at the xray station which have "greeters" to check your documents are in order. As a non-citizen I produced my passport and I don't know what level of documentation a US citizen is required to produce. From memory the baggage check is "less strict" than Australian baggage check but that is probably due to that layer of security being provided at xray.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,417
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    OK, I'll take your word for it. So it seems we have established that those people who cannot get photo ID aren't racking up many frequent flyer miles.
    It seems I was being too generous to you, Jono. According to the TSA's own site:

    We encourage each adult traveler to keep his/her airline boarding pass and government-issued photo ID available until exiting the security checkpoint (children are not required to show identification). The absence of proper identification will result in additional screening.

    TSA encourages travels to remember 3 simple steps to security:

    Have ID out
    Coats & Shoes off
    Laptop and 3-1-1 bag out

    So, no you don't need it. According to this answerer, the additional screening is patting down and checking bags, takes about 5 minutes.

    Next?
    meep meep

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    According to the TSA's own site:

    We encourage each adult traveler to keep his/her airline boarding pass and government-issued photo ID available until exiting the security checkpoint (children are not required to show identification). The absence of proper identification will result in additional screening.
    If there is no proof of identity, in practice that could mean that flight would be denied. After all, for all they know, you could be on a terrorist watch list, but travelling under a false name.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    TSA encourages travels to remember 3 simple steps to security:

    Have ID out
    Coats & Shoes off
    Laptop and 3-1-1 bag out
    That seems pretty clear that an ID is a normal requirement. And there is nothing racist about it!! I must even show ID when I check in my luggage.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    So, no you don't need it. According to this answerer, the additional screening is patting down and checking bags, takes about 5 minutes.
    That answerer could be anyone.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 13-06-2012 at 02:12 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    No it isn't nonsense, at least in Australia you can pickup prescriptions on behalf of someone else. Not sure whether the same hold true in the US or not.
    Then maybe you shouldn't comment! I live there now (and don't see the racism that all you leftards imagine is in the USA), and am asked for my ID quite frequently, and that includes seeing the doctor to get a script in the first place. I can pick up my wife's prescription, but need to show my ID to show that I am plausibly acting on her behalf, but she got the script with her ID.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    If there is no proof of identity, in practice that could mean that flight would be denied.
    Could. All that you can say is could. Therefore, your capitalised, emboldened, and italicized exclaimation YES! that ID is required is wrong.

    Then maybe you shouldn't comment! I live there now (and don't see the racism that all you leftards imagine is in the USA), and am asked for my ID quite frequently, and that includes seeing the doctor to get a script in the first place. I can pick up my wife's prescription, but need to show my ID to show that I am plausibly acting on her behalf, but she got the script with her ID.
    As with the flying example, just because you are asked for photo ID does not necessarily mean that it is required.
    meep meep

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    Could. All that you can say is could. Therefore, your capitalised, emboldened, and italicized exclaimation YES! that ID is required is wrong.
    That was certainly the impression I have gained as a frequent traveller. I saw none of the other passengers refuse to present an ID. And your own example of further checks to see if they are not on a "no fly" list would entail being able to produce identification to show they are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    As with the flying example, just because you are asked for photo ID does not necessarily mean that it is required.
    Still most implausible for reasons given. The TSA has become so paranoid that it molests little girls and 95-year-old grandmothers with adult diapers. It is a flight of fantasy that they would allow someone to board an airplane who had no ID--for all they know, he could be on a terrorist watch list and refuses to produce his ID to evade detection.

    Back to the point of the thread: it's hardly racist to demand ID before flying. So it's just nonsense to claim that requiring ID to prove that one is entitled to vote is "racist". Not that Eric Holder cared when New Black Panthers were intimidating white voters--he withdrew a case against them that was already won!
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 16-06-2012 at 02:04 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That was certainly the impression I have gained as a frequent traveller. I saw none of the other passengers refuse to present an ID. And your own example of further checks to see if they are not on a "no fly" list would entail being able to produce identification to show they are not.
    That is your assumption. The fact remains that the TSA site says in black and white that absence of ID will result in additional screening, not in refusal to fly.

    Still most implausible for reasons given. The TSA has become so paranoid that it molests six-year-old girls and 90-year-old grandmothers with adult diapers. It is a flight of fantasy that they would allow someone to board an airplane who had no ID--for all they know, he could be on a terrorist watch list and refuses to produce his ID to evade detection.
    Thanks for bringing up children, who TSA explicitly says do not require ID to fly. So they do allow people on board with no ID. Every day.
    meep meep

  9. #39
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    That is your assumption. The fact remains that the TSA site says in black and white that absence of ID will result in additional screening, not in refusal to fly.
    And the additional security involves checking that you are not on a terrorist no-fly list, which would require ID to disprove it.

    So is it racist to ask for ID knowing that 99.99% of passengers will comply, and have no trouble doing so regardless of race?

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner
    Thanks for bringing up children, who TSA explicitly says do not require ID to fly. So they do allow people on board with no ID. Every day.
    They can't vote, so irrelevant.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Judge refuses to block Florida voter purge
    27 June 2012

    Well duh (although it escapes the likes of racebaiters like Holder and GF):

    U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said Wednesday that there was nothing in federal voting laws that prevent the state from identifying non-U.S. citizens even if it comes less than 90 days before the Aug. 14 election.

    Hinkle ruled that federal laws are designed to block states from removing eligible voters close to an election. He said they are not designed to stop states from blocking voters who should have never been allowed to cast ballots in the first place.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #41
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Hinkle ruled that federal laws are designed to block states from removing eligible voters close to an election. He said they are not designed to stop states from blocking voters who should have never been allowed to cast ballots in the first place.
    Ahh, I get it. The the federal laws are designed to prevent states from removing eligible voters within 90 days of an election. Removing eligible voters before this time is fine though ...
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  12. #42
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Ahh, I get it. The the federal laws are designed to prevent states from removing eligible voters within 90 days of an election. Removing eligible voters before this time is fine though ...
    Don't you understand simple logic, such as the fallacy of denying the antecedent? Leftards will evidently do anything to preserve voter fraud, including their demagoguing of laws requiring voters to prove that they are who they claim to be, and blocking purging of ineligible people from the voter roll, e.g. because they are residents of other states, illegal immigrants, felons, or dead—all of whom are generally reliable Dem voters.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #43
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Don't you understand simple logic, such as the fallacy of denying the antecedent?
    Predictably, you miss the point yet again. A law purportedly designed to prevent states from removing eligible voters within 90 days of an election would be redundant if a state was never entitled to remove eligible voters.

    Once again, you enter into a discussion concerning legislative principles where you are completed unqualified to speak. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Leftards will evidently do anything to preserve voter fraud, including their demagoguing of laws requiring voters to prove that they are who they claim to be, and blocking purging of ineligible people from the voter roll, e.g. because they are residents of other states, illegal immigrants, felons, or dead—all of whom are generally reliable Dem voters.
    Fortunately, some Republicans lack the nuance to continue to lie about their motivations in enacting onerous Voter ID laws:

    Last edited by Goughfather; 29-06-2012 at 12:46 AM.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Predictably, you miss the point yet again. A law purportedly designed to prevent states from removing eligible voters within 90 days of an election would be redundant if a state was never entitled to remove eligible voters.
    What is your problem? Again:
    "U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said Wednesday that there was nothing in federal voting laws that prevent the state from identifying non-U.S. citizens even if it comes less than 90 days before the Aug. 14 election."

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Once again, you enter into a discussion concerning legislative principles where you are completed unqualified to speak. Please refrain from doing so in the future.
    Get stuffed. Being an Australian ambulance-chasing shyster doesn't make you qualified in American law yourself. You are just a bigoted outsider looking in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    Fortunately, some Republicans lack the nuance to continue to lie about their motivations in enacting onerous Voter ID laws:
    Good grief, a far left show asserting that these are "voter suppression" laws. No, no eligible voter will be suppressed, just those not eligible to vote. This Republican is making the simple point that Dems benefit from the votes of felons, illegal immigrants, and dead people. Get rid of this cheating, and Gov. Romney is more likely to win a swing state like PA, full of voters whose jobs are being destroyed by Dem/EPA tyranny.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #45
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What is your problem? Again:
    "U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said Wednesday that there was nothing in federal voting laws that prevent the state from identifying non-U.S. citizens even if it comes less than 90 days before the Aug. 14 election."
    Again, my problem is that you repeatedly miss the point, either because of bloody-mindedness or because of a lack of cognitive capacity. If one said that a particular law was designed to criminalise murder in the first 90 days of the year, one would wonder what the point of this law would be, given that murder is already against the law.

    Even if the laws are designed to prevent U.S. citizens from not being struck off the rolls in the 90 days leading up to an election, it is not therefore legitimate to engage in voter purging during this period even if the rationale is to strike off ineligible voters, given that this 90 day period seems to acknowledge that such a purge will also risk taking away the vote of those who are eligible to vote and will not provide these people with sufficient time to rectify this situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Get stuffed. Being an Australian ambulance-chasing shyster doesn't make you qualified in American law yourself. You are just a bigoted outsider looking in.
    Given that statutory interpretation and relevant legislative principles in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US and the UK borrow from each other to formulate these bodies of law, I'm more than qualified to comment. You however have absolutely no basis upon which to engage in this debate given your complete illiteracy in this field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Good grief, a far left show asserting that these are "voter suppression" laws. No, no eligible voter will be suppressed, just those not eligible to vote.
    The fact that you are able to say this with a straight face is what is most disturbing. Examples of those struck off the roles through no fault of their own are in abundance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    This Republican is making the simple point that Dems benefit from the votes of felons, illegal immigrants, and dead people. Get rid of this cheating, and Gov. Romney is more likely to win a swing state like PA, full of voters whose jobs are being destroyed by Dem/EPA tyranny.
    I thought you didn't watch YouTube clips.

    He didn't say anything of the kind. Even if he did, this Republican makes clear that the primary reason for onerous Voter ID laws is to secure victory for the Republicans. Anything else, if it even can be rationalised, is incidental.
    Last edited by Goughfather; 29-06-2012 at 06:18 PM.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •