National ID is the Slippery Slope

[George Orwell]

David Sternlight (***@netcom.com) wrote:

: However, readers who like the slippery slope argument may wish to know that
: I am rethinking my view of this principle, not because of the above, but
: because I continue to think about issues in sincere dispute.
..

: In a sense those who object to a resource ID card on grounds that it might
: become a national ID card are in this tradition. The issue then becomes one
: of where one puts the trip wires, rather than the appropriateness of trip
: wires.

: Gotta think about this some more.

This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.

I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.

Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?

However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
recap the points I've made elsewhere, so I'll just list a few points:

* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)

* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.

* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)

* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)

Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.

Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."

--Tim May
--
.........................................................................
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

[E***@spamblock.panix.com]

Post by George Orwell
This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?
However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."
--Tim May

Nicely written, Tim.

[e***@netpath.net]

National ID isn't compatible with joke borders and tens of millions of
illegal aliens in America - which the regime has acquiesced to. Don't
think for one moment that the regime is going to create a situation in
which tens of millions in America - most all with legally-eligible-to-
vote ethnic kinsmen here - will be cut off from the welfare state or
even medical care because they don't have some national ID card.

http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!

[CanopyCo]

Post by George Orwell
: However, readers who like the slippery slope argument may wish to know that
: I am rethinking my view of this principle, not because of the above, but
: because I continue to think about issues in sincere dispute.
..
: In a sense those who object to a resource ID card on grounds that it might
: become a national ID card are in this tradition. The issue then becomes one
: of where one puts the trip wires, rather than the appropriateness of trip
: wires.
: Gotta think about this some more.
This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?
However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)

Yep, no one should ever need proper identification.
If I go to your bank at a branch that has never seen you, I should be
able to clean out you account by putting a cast on my writing hand and
saying I am you.
No ID needed.

If I am found outside your house while you are gone, the LEO should
let me stay because I told him I am you.
No ID needed.

Yep, government hand outs are the only reason anyone would ever need
to be able to prove who they are.

;-)

Post by George Orwell
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.

Yep, all insurance should be banned, regardless of the carrier.
Unemployment insurance, health insurance, retirement insurance, fire
insurance, theft insurance all should be banned.
That way when premium payers want to collect according to the policy
that they have been paying on for years, they can just go fish.

You do realize that food stamps, unemployment payments, and social
security are all insurances that you pay into as a insurance.

;-)

Post by George Orwell
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)

To late.
The drivers license is the present required ID.
It even comes in a ID and not drivers license form.

Post by George Orwell
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)

Just like the drivers license now.

Post by George Orwell
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.

Don’t drive?

Post by George Orwell
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."

Ya, right.

;-)

[Mike Jones]

Post by George Orwell
: However, readers who like the slippery slope argument may wish to
know that : I am rethinking my view of this principle, not because of
the above, but : because I continue to think about issues in sincere
dispute. ..
: In a sense those who object to a resource ID card on grounds that it
might : become a national ID card are in this tradition. The issue then
becomes one : of where one puts the trip wires, rather than the
appropriateness of trip : wires.
: Gotta think about this some more.
This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources to
the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?
However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)

Yep, no one should ever need proper identification. If I go to your bank
at a branch that has never seen you, I should be able to clean out you
account by putting a cast on my writing hand and saying I am you.
No ID needed.
If I am found outside your house while you are gone, the LEO should let
me stay because I told him I am you. No ID needed.
Yep, government hand outs are the only reason anyone would ever need to
be able to prove who they are.
;-)

Post by George Orwell
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.

Yep, all insurance should be banned, regardless of the carrier.
Unemployment insurance, health insurance, retirement insurance, fire
insurance, theft insurance all should be banned. That way when premium
payers want to collect according to the policy that they have been
paying on for years, they can just go fish.
You do realize that food stamps, unemployment payments, and social
security are all insurances that you pay into as a insurance.
;-)

Post by George Orwell
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)

To late.
The drivers license is the present required ID. It even comes in a ID
and not drivers license form.

Post by George Orwell
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures of
specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of technical
details here, which I won't go into.)

Just like the drivers license now.

Post by George Orwell
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If hauled
in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd win.

Don’t drive?

Post by George Orwell
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."

Ya, right.
;-)

Wow! Two loonies in almost perfect balance!

Ya don't see that every day! :)

[©Ari®]

Post by George Orwell
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?

Give out the resource then shoot the fucker.

[Unruh]

Post by George Orwell
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?

You use a sepate identity for each of the "services". YOu do not use a
"universal identity card" As Romeao Dalaire-- he saw the use of identity
cards in Rawanda. People would be demanded for their identity card, and
it it had Tutsi on it, they were slaughtered. You say this could never
happen in our modern societies, it has. Germany, Rawanada,
Yugoslavia,... were highly sophisticated societies which had a broad
toloerance and where many groups worked well together. And the whole
thing decayed, and descended into hell. The ability of people to hide
from the government is extremely important to ensure that liberty is
retained in a society.

[Strabo]

Post by Unruh

Post by George Orwell
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?

You use a sepate identity for each of the "services". YOu do not use a
"universal identity card" As Romeao Dalaire-- he saw the use of identity
cards in Rawanda. People would be demanded for their identity card, and
it it had Tutsi on it, they were slaughtered. You say this could never
happen in our modern societies, it has. Germany, Rawanada,
Yugoslavia,... were highly sophisticated societies which had a broad
toloerance and where many groups worked well together. And the whole
thing decayed, and descended into hell. The ability of people to hide
from the government is extremely important to ensure that liberty is
retained in a society.

Has happened and will again.
"Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?"
Top down verification of identity is the prelude to oppression.

The best reason for not having a welfare state.

[Charlie Kroeger]

Post by Strabo
The best reason for not having a welfare state.

I've lived in countries in Africa that had no welfare. The results being the
country's wealth confined to the vicious few in charge and their friends in
the army. You see poverty in all directions. The rich cause poverty by the way
and there's no better place to see this than some regions of Africa where
tribalism passes for no social conscience.

As regards welfare, public not corporate, why does America need eleven (11)
carrier groups? Why not say, five (5) to show our good intentions toward world
peace. The money saved would easily pay a lot of unemployment checks to the
sixty or seventy thousand sailors and marines out of a job until they can find
gainful employment on our new infrastructural public works projects. I figure
the savings of losing these bloated and outdated war flotillas would start
paying for a lot of new infrastructure too.

Let's choose sanity and demilitarize our country. Let's get our military
budget down to a reasonable 200 billion instead of the 500 odd billion it is
now. Plenty of money for welfare then.

[Mike Jones]

Post by Strabo

Post by Unruh

Post by George Orwell
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?

You use a sepate identity for each of the "services". YOu do not use a
"universal identity card" As Romeao Dalaire-- he saw the use of
identity cards in Rawanda. People would be demanded for their identity
card, and it it had Tutsi on it, they were slaughtered. You say this
could never happen in our modern societies, it has. Germany, Rawanada,
Yugoslavia,... were highly sophisticated societies which had a broad
toloerance and where many groups worked well together. And the whole
thing decayed, and descended into hell. The ability of people to hide
from the government is extremely important to ensure that liberty is
retained in a society.

Has happened and will again.
"Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?"
Top down verification of identity is the prelude to oppression.
The best reason for not having a welfare state.

...Resulting in bottom up oppression by fear of the roaming gangland
nations-within-nations that are a direct result of the poverty that
results from not maintaining an effective (note that keyword there,
"effective") social catchnet, etc.

Alternatively (or even simultaniously), you could work on tarring and
feathering corrupt payola politicians (a weekly nationally syndicated TV
show?) and do something about how things are policed.

Some sort of national fully binding Constitution and probably a fully
recognised Bill of Rights would be needed for something like that though,
and where are you going to find things like that these days? :(

Or you could just load up for bear and junk the last 100 years of social
and political progress...

[©Ari®]

Post by George Orwell
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.

Sure, let the fuckers starve to death. very humanitarian of you Tim
Orwell.

Post by George Orwell
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)

Clue: That's exactly what the Real ID Card is about.

Post by George Orwell
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)

Good b/c it won't work.

Post by George Orwell
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID.

Cops usually leave bi and tricyclists alone.

Post by George Orwell
If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.

Really?

If you think you can jerk a judge around with patently bullshit answers
that are the equivalent of saying "Prove it!" while giving him the
finger, think again.

Judges are not stupid. They are cranky, conservative old men,
infatuated with their own estimate of their abilities, with a jaundiced
view of the rest of mankind, and drunk on the power they have exercised
over others' lives, true - but they aren't stupid.

And courts are not just about old men in fusty wigs, funny clothes, and
oak paneling. Behind that veneer lies power, naked and raw, with very,
very sharp teeth. Cross them and that power will be brought to bear
very forcefully indeed.

If you find yourself in court you have already lost - bigtime! Even if
found innocent it will be a sentence of bankruptcy with perhaps your
marriage, your career, and your future in tatters. That's the upside.

So make sure you don't find yourself there. But, if you do, I suggest
presenting a very submissive and very respectful demeanor. Unless, of
course, you'd like to go out in a blaze of glory, a hero to us all, as
you begin your long sentence.

Post by George Orwell
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."

YOU are an idiot clicking your heels together and wishing something were
true. And a liar who would rather play kiddy games than face facts.

Post by George Orwell
--Tim May
--
.........................................................................
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,

Nice "anonymous" posting. lol

[Too_Many_Tools]

Post by George Orwell
: However, readers who like the slippery slope argument may wish to know that
: I am rethinking my view of this principle, not because of the above, but
: because I continue to think about issues in sincere dispute.
..
: In a sense those who object to a resource ID card on grounds that it might
: become a national ID card are in this tradition. The issue then becomes one
: of where one puts the trip wires, rather than the appropriateness of trip
: wires.
: Gotta think about this some more.
This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?
However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."
--Tim May
--
.........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                 https://www.mixmaster.it

Nicely written bullshit.

If you want responsible immigration, you want a National ID system in
place.

TMT

[Strabo]

Post by Too_Many_Tools

Post by George Orwell
: However, readers who like the slippery slope argument may wish to know that
: I am rethinking my view of this principle, not because of the above, but
: because I continue to think about issues in sincere dispute.
..
: In a sense those who object to a resource ID card on grounds that it might
: become a national ID card are in this tradition. The issue then becomes one
: of where one puts the trip wires, rather than the appropriateness of trip
: wires.
: Gotta think about this some more.
This is an issue we're all thinking about, in its various
manifestations.
I see any social welfare state, such as ours, which gives out various
resources as having to verify that it isn't giving out the resources
to the same person multiple times, to "unqualified" people, etc.
Thus, I can see the need to have proof of identity. How else could it
be, given such handouts?
However, I have many reservations about the implementation and
enforcement of such system. I don't have the time or will right now to
* no identity system should ever be made _mandatory_ for general use.
Specifically, if I am not seeking government handouts of some sort,
failure to have ID should cause no problems, right? (And I am not
setting up a straw man, claiming that the proposed card is to be
required. That is indeed my real concern, but I don't base my concerns
on such a straw man.)
* a cleaner and better way to resolve these nettlesome issues of
immigration, health care, welfare, handouts, etc., is to simply cut
them all off. I don't care who has "proof" of their identities and who
doesn't if I only have to interact with in mutually agreeable
transactions. Ditto for proofs of citizenship, etc.
* a concern I have is that a government-issued smartcard-type ID could
be used by DMV, credit card companies, etc. as a piggybacking vehicle.
This could--emphasis on could--result in such a card being a de facto
mandatory card. (Even worse would be a de jure mandatory card, of
course. But I agree with many that Americans would not cotten to that.)
* make use of Chaum-style credentials allowing selective disclosures
of specific fields of data, not full ID information. (Lots of
technical details here, which I won't go into.)
Me, I often don't carry any ID on me. I've never been stopped and told
to produce ID. If I were, I'd ask for what law requires this. If
hauled in for vagrancy, I'd sue the city and cops. And I think I'd
win.
Cops know this, too, and are fairly careful not to randomly hassle
folks and demand they produce their "papers."
--Tim May
--
.........................................................................
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

Nicely written bullshit.
If you want responsible immigration, you want a National ID system in
place.
TMT

There's no such as responsible immigration. The target nation always
loses.

Each of the three major federal immigration programs (1880-1923) were
the product of special commercial interests and each created massive
domestic social upheavals for the benefit of a few merchants and
political operatives.

Did the Republic survive this incursion? No. The impact of importing
millions of Monarchist and Marxist conditioned Europeans began
attitudinal and legalistic changes to US law and policy resulting in
the social welfare state and security apparati that we experience today.

In fact, federal decisions post WWII that exported these influences
under the guise of reconstruction. It was the US controlled
IMF and World Bank that made hundreds of nations debtor nations in order
to seize resources and then seized the nations gold forcing them into
perpetual dependency.

As Congress cannot create another legal human wave, in the 1990s
Socialist members conspired to ignore basic constitutional
obligations and facilitated the current Hispanic invasion in
order to drive down labor costs and overwhelm voting districts.
This is preparation for regional 'free trade' agreements that will
bury constitutional government.

[Silver Lead]

Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.politics.democrats, alt.atheism
From: George Orwell <***@mixmaster.it>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
Local: Mon, Oct 12 2009 3:39 pm
Subject: Obama and his kind
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
America has been robbed, raped and murdered by a bunch of NIGGER LOVING
FAGGOTS
AND NIGGERS!
Thank you America, thanks for voting in a nigger when Niggers lead ALL CRIME
CATEGORIES, RAPE BABIES, DON'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT, NEVER WORK, HAVE THE IQ OF
A
BOWL OF JELLO AND STINK LIKE SHIT!.

FACTS ABOUT NIGGERS THAT NO ONE CAN COUNTER


Niggers have never invented ANYTHING that helped society. Recipes do not
count,
neither does inventing things that have already been invented.
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/


220 million Whites in the United States
36 Million NIGGERS
40 million hispanics


PERCENT OF CRIME BY RACE


Whites do 33% of all crime
Niggers do 46% of all crime
Hispanics do 18% of all crime


Now, explain how the white man is forcing the NIGGERS to do most of the
crime?
Niggers are 23.4 times more likely to commit crime than a WHITE man is.
Niggers are criminal shit.


Is it because niggers are poor that niggers are such criminal shit beasts?


38 million Whites live under the poverty line
9 million Hispanics live under the poverty line
8 million NIGGERS live under the poverty line


Since there are more poor whites than there are NIGGERS TOTAL, then explain
why
whites aren't doing more crime than NIGGERS. You can't can you? because
niggers
are CRIMINAL SHIT BEASTS AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!


Single Parent homes
White 29%
Hispanic 43%
NIGGERS 76%


Pays Child Suppost
White 86%
Hispanic 59%
Niggers 25%


Now, is it reasonable to assume that niggers make babies but do not pay for
them
or marry the woman they impregnate? It must be niggers being racist against
themselves
by being criminal shit beasts. That must be it.


You nigger lovers are ruining this country. HANG ALL NIGGERS! DON'T VOTE FOR
THEM, HANG THEM!


NIGGERS ARE CRIMINAL SHIT BEASTS!!! PRAISE JESUS!!!!! FLUSH THE
NIGGERS!!!!!!


FUCK YOU IF YOU DONT AGREE!


***@hotmail.com
send me a message if you want the piss kicked out of you.


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/453ba01afa9ec7ff/efb004d9607d12a?hl=en&q=author:George+author:Orwell#0efb004d9607d12a