Romney Supports Her Submitting DNA: Ron Paul Should Make A Statement

[Anti Federalist]

say .. what????

Where do you live. I'm from St. Louis and we ain't that bad!

I have never committed a felony. You do know we are talking about crimes that can lock you up for at least a year?

Three Felonies a Day.

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well. If we can get over ourselves for a minute and look outside the frootloop box we may be able to place it into proper perspective. if'n we wanna.

The science of the matter, as always, gets shoved aside and everyone makes it about their privacy and liberty and whatnot when the fact is that when science merges with government (in it's current form being a merge of corporation and state) instead of genuine scientists with a cause instead of a corporate sponsor(think of that nice dual citizen Chertoff and those xray machines) the results or fruits of the said labor becomes a trade secret. A matter of national security. The National Aeronautics Space Act of 1959 says so. Look it up.

In todays world of transhumanism as well as many other aspects of "science" merged with corporate interests in a time where homeland security is big business (think Gary Johnson and his scheme of building the perfect prison industrial complex almong with Chertoff I already mentioned) there is so much more that you all should be concerned with than your privacy. Way more.

Why not ask what they plan on doing with it and see what kind of answer you get? That oughtta be a hoot.

 

[Anti Federalist]

One you open a door for the government they will exploit the whole room until nothing is left but ashes. But I am sure this for the greater good and would never use it in a bad manner. Why would anyone, especially on here want to give the government MORE power?

Quislings and collaborators?

 

[QuickZ06]

Quislings and collaborators?

Hope not but then again certain usernames do come to mind.

 

[QuickZ06]

Three Felonies a Day.

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Still laughing at this one.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. I owe you one

 

[Kylie]

Three Felonies a Day.

http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Love it!

New to the state of our union, most just draw a blank and decide to take the blue pill. Hell, I sometimes wish I could do it myself. Then I wouldn't drink so much.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well if any more library books are overdue we'll know where to look first won't we?

 

[PolicyReader]

Still laughing at this one.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. I owe you one

Got you covered on this one.

In response to TrishW and the broader topic
More data is not equal to better __________. The assumption that data is useful contains various sub-assumptions such as, the data is relevant, the data is derived/placed in proper context, the data is not corrupt/mishandled, the relevance/significant of the data relative to other data involved is kept in proper context, etc etc.

I've had several background checks done on me (at my own behest) and none of them (I'll repeat this) none of them have returned accurate results. All of them contained both significant omissions and inaccurate additions (for example according to one I hold my fathers PhD).

During the last presidential election cycle the FBI DNA data base was over 3.5 years backlogged and climbing. Now I haven't checked back recently but I've heard/seen nothing to indicate that the rate of increase on the backlog has gone down. So now we have a national data base which even by the most basic of standards (entering the data they directly possess, with no comment the quality/completeness etc of the data they directly possess) is incomplete. Yet it's used in practice as an active/effective reference source, people put faith in the data base as if somehow "it's in the computer" makes whatever "it" is more valid. I work with computers and trust me "It's in the computer" doesn't make the information any better and depending on your system can make it less secure/reliable. It certainly doesn't reduce the capacity for human error, it just adds another step to the process which means another step wherein human error can occur.

Also trotting out the "sex offender" scare tactic is so completely over done it boggles the mind.
If a woman who is over the legal age of consent is raped by an adolescent under the age of consent, and then tells her therapist in a "closed" session about the trauma. And the therapist then reports the incident (as is required by law in some ares of the usa) that woman is then a felony sex offender, has her DNA taken and is put on the national registry. This by the way is not a theoretical argument it has actually taken place.

Another example, an elderly woman enters her kitchen to find two of her grandchildren fighting, the elder having chased the younger into the house, she calls on them to stop and when her cries are not heeded she uses her cane to whack the elder/larger of the two until he ceases beating his younger relative who is prone on the floor. In laying about with her cane she strikes him in the groin. She is now a felony sex offender who's DNA has been taken and who is tracked by the national registry. This is not theoretical, this has actually happened.

A third example, a girl participates in a threesome with another girl and a man. Nearly a year later the second girls parents find out and convince/coerce (depending on who you ask) her to press charges for statutory. The first girl (who is now no longer a minor) is called upon to testify and when she fails to uphold the fallacious testimony of the second she is classed as a sex offender, has her DNA taken and is put on the national registry. Again this is not theoretical, this has actually happened.

None of these details are contained within the standard informational release of the national database much less the information available to perspective employers etc. the information made available to them is rather that the woman in question (take your pick of the above) is officially branded a sex offender, that she has been convicted of a violent felony, and her current incarceration/probation status. On paper they're violent criminals, in reality they're more or less normal people who have suffered misfortune.
Now thanks to the "wonders of science" as incarnated in the national registry/DNA data base they can also be used as part of various statistics as 'boogeyman' tactics to further persuade the citizens of America that we must surrender more of our liberty "for the sake of the women and children." Tell that to the women (some of whom were barely beyond 18 years of age at the time of conviction and were in fact legally children at the time the events in question may have occurred), and many others like them from the examples above.
Bureaucratic inaccuracies don't magically stop when in comes to law enforcement, they don't stop when it comes to felony charges, and they certainly don't stop when it comes to massive federal data mining activities like collection and archiving of biometrics. What does change is the repercussions suffered by those who are inaccurately assessed/classed/miss filed suffer much more grievously.

(On a related side note: If certain provisions of current "free trade" negotiations are in fact ratified and pass into US law it could become a felony to sell property in a 'used' state if you do not possess either A) the rights to the IP or B) a legal license to produce and sell the IP. Such provisions are specifically not limited to digital/informational goods but would apply to physical goods as well so long as those goods were manufactured outside of the borders of the USA. Which essentially means it would become criminal to have a yard sale if you happened to include anything from a Wal-Mart, or Apple, to name just a couple of examples.
Making something a law does not make it rational, ethical, or effective. Nor does it guarantee effective or accurate use of the law as written (much less as intended). Just because a data base contains information does not make that information accurate (regardless of whose data base we're talking about, no organization or person is 100% infallible). And just because the government (at whatever level) says someone, some act, or some event, is harmful to you or holds a certain weight/meaning does not in fact make it so.
Just ask the Founding Fathers who's actions made them very much classed violet criminals all the way up until they were able to establish their own government.)

 

[jmdrake]

I already received a bad rep for my opinion, but I'm sticking by it.

What is a petty felony? There is no such thing.

A person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime is known as a felon. In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

This law is not about library books. It upsets me that the senator in the article is misleading us by applying the law to a late book.

In Tennessee they recently tried to pass a law to collect DNA from anyone arrested for a felony. Further the punishment should fit the crime. Someone convicted of wire fraud is no more likely to commit rape or murder than someone convicted of simple assault. Yet simple assault is the misdemeanor and wire fraud can be a felony. The punishment should fit the crime. If you're a rapist a DNA sample makes sense. Mail fraud, it doesn't.

 

[jmdrake]

OK... I went back and re-checked The law only applies to felonies.

Failure to return a library book is a misdemeanor.

Says who?

http://www.kansas-criminal-defense-law.com/theft.html

In Kansas, the severity of the theft charge depends upon the value of the item stolen. If the value of the item stolen is over $1,000 then the charge is a felony and the defendant will be sentenced according to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines.
.
.
.
(b) Failure to return your overdue library books within 30 days from receiving a written request from the library. (That is not a joke. You can be prosecuted for theft for your failure to return your library books on time.)

If you have > $1,000 worth of books/DVDs etc out...you can be a felon.

I stand by my approval of Romney (in this one instance)

Just goes to show that uninformed people support Romney. Seriously though, I ain't mad at you. It's a rude awakening when you find out that in certain jurisdictions you can be a convicted felon for not returning library books. I don't know what the law is in Mass., but I'm willing to bet this legislator you are criticizing has read the law and it's similar to Kansas. Dorothy...we're not really in Kansas anymore.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In Tennessee they recently tried to pass a law to collect DNA from anyone arrested for a felony. Further the punishment should fit the crime. Someone convicted of wire fraud is no more likely to commit rape or murder than someone convicted of simple assault. Yet simple assault is the misdemeanor and wire fraud can be a felony. The punishment should fit the crime. If you're a rapist a DNA sample makes sense. Mail fraud, it doesn't.

Thanks for the reminder. I remembered that happening somewhere. Pretty horrifying.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In Tennessee they recently tried to pass a law to collect DNA from anyone arrested for a felony. Further the punishment should fit the crime. Someone convicted of wire fraud is no more likely to commit rape or murder than someone convicted of simple assault. Yet simple assault is the misdemeanor and wire fraud can be a felony. The punishment should fit the crime. If you're a rapist a DNA sample makes sense. Mail fraud, it doesn't.

Thanks for the reminder. I remembered that happening somewhere. Pretty horrifying.

 

[r3volution]

that reminds me of something i was reading last year , in some places public urination can land you on the sex offender registry .

 

[PolicyReader]

that reminds me of something i was reading last year , in some places public urination can land you on the sex offender registry .

^yep also true... there are even a few states (or to be specific one state I've looked up) where technically anything non-"missionary" can be classed as a sex crime (not that it's generally enforced that way thankfully, no bedroom raids as such that I've heard of, but even just having the law written that way at all )

 

[Anti Federalist]

You ever have a cop pull you over speeding?

Did the cop ask, "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Did you tell him the absolute truth, (assuming, of course, you were foolish enough to answer that question)?

If you did not, you just committed a federal felony under USC 1001.

"But, hey, AF, that only applies to federal "officials".

Oh no, check again my friends:

Courts have affirmed § 1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision

That is every level of law enforcement, as the feds have weaseled their way into all of it.

Oh, and BTW, this is another atrocity you can thank both Lincoln and FDR for.

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

When confronted by any government "official", there is just one thing to do, STFU, immediately.

Talking to them can only do one thing and one thing only: make it worse.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[anaconda]

In Tennessee they recently tried to pass a law to collect DNA from anyone arrested for a felony.

This is bad.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thank you for this AF. I found it very insightful.

More than welcome.

Spread that video around.

 

[Revolution9]

They already have my information, my Mug Shot, my Social Security number, my License Number, if I spend a night in jail they probably got my finger prints. I'm in the file anyway.

Is it that DNA is that much more personal then any other form of I.D.?

They can clone you from a snippet. It won't be you but it will have the appearance of...and be really fucking stupid. If they want your DNA you are well within your rights to call it Satanic and refuse. Worked for me every time. Because I actually do consider it Satanic in essence.

Rev9