Yet another new law for the overregulated
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hatt
It's already happening. No doubt it'll be spreading.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31042477
Then with "smart dust", you won't need goons with guns to track your every move (and know where to pick you up)
It's already happening. No doubt it'll be spreading.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31042477
Then with "smart dust", you won't need goons with guns to track your every move (and know where to pick you up)
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Shannow
andrewg,
that was his premise as to why Aussies shouldn't complain about having to have photo ID or face a fine.
He's perfectly OK with him personally having to have ID when he walks out the front door or face consequences, and feels the rest of us should follow.
Sorry....I missed that in one of his posts.
Hard to believe somebody is ok with being required to carry ID at ALL times....or face a fine.
That's how stuff gets out of hand with government. The people are willing puppets because they see it as "no big deal" or "it's for safety" kind of excuses.
Walking around your country....enjoying life and the scenery...should NEVER require you to carry ID to please the authorities. That's like them saying that they govern your movement...even to take a simple walk. A citizen should NEVER have to do this. Why should they? It's shocking to me that anyone sees no danger in this or a hampering of free movement.
Ridiculous.
They'll likely support the mandatory chip implants that will be coming at some point. It's really the natural progression. If you think you should carry ID everywhere or face penalties a chip or barcode would be preferable to add convenience.
there's a difference. you show the ID if and when you want... only police can ask for it. with a chip, you're a free for all.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Shannow
andrewg,
that was his premise as to why Aussies shouldn't complain about having to have photo ID or face a fine.
He's perfectly OK with him personally having to have ID when he walks out the front door or face consequences, and feels the rest of us should follow.
Sorry....I missed that in one of his posts.
Hard to believe somebody is ok with being required to carry ID at ALL times....or face a fine.
That's how stuff gets out of hand with government. The people are willing puppets because they see it as "no big deal" or "it's for safety" kind of excuses.
Walking around your country....enjoying life and the scenery...should NEVER require you to carry ID to please the authorities. That's like them saying that they govern your movement...even to take a simple walk. A citizen should NEVER have to do this. Why should they? It's shocking to me that anyone sees no danger in this or a hampering of free movement.
Ridiculous.
They'll likely support the mandatory chip implants that will be coming at some point. It's really the natural progression. If you think you should carry ID everywhere or face penalties a chip or barcode would be preferable to add convenience.
there's a difference. you show the ID if and when you want... only police can ask for it. with a chip, you're a free for all.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-force...221-glsfo6.html
How is this over regulation? It sounds completely reasonable to me. Why would you be out cycling without your wallet in the first place?
If for no other reason, you should have ID on you so EMTs know who you are if you are in an accident and are knocked unconscious (very possible on a bike!!), or even killed. In that event, you'd end up a John Doe and they won't know who to contact. They'd have to run a composite drawing of your face on the news asking for someone to ID you. Is that how you want your family to find out you are dead? On the evening news?
Unless you have fingerprints in the local police file for them to match up, anyway.
If people want to ride in the street on a bike, they should be required to have ID, same as drivers; young kids exempted of course. But than again, having at least an abbreviated name and contact # photo ID card would be a good idea for kids, in case of an accident.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-force...221-glsfo6.html
How is this over regulation? It sounds completely reasonable to me. Why would you be out cycling without your wallet in the first place?
If for no other reason, you should have ID on you so EMTs know who you are if you are in an accident and are knocked unconscious (very possible on a bike!!), or even killed. In that event, you'd end up a John Doe and they won't know who to contact. They'd have to run a composite drawing of your face on the news asking for someone to ID you. Is that how you want your family to find out you are dead? On the evening news?
Unless you have fingerprints in the local police file for them to match up, anyway.
If people want to ride in the street on a bike, they should be required to have ID, same as drivers; young kids exempted of course. But than again, having at least an abbreviated name and contact # photo ID card would be a good idea for kids, in case of an accident.
Originally Posted By: Silk
No helmet, no shoes, small town with not much traffic.
And no toes/toenails, soon enough.
No helmet, no shoes, small town with not much traffic.
And no toes/toenails, soon enough.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
Originally Posted By: Cubey
And no toes/toenails, soon enough.
I've still got all mine, she won't be doing all the crazy stuff did as a kid, so she might get to keep her's too.
And no toes/toenails, soon enough.
I've still got all mine, she won't be doing all the crazy stuff did as a kid, so she might get to keep her's too.
Originally Posted By: Cubey
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
Can you tell me how the government EARNED the money to pay for such things?
I don't get your bizarro attitude anyway. Did I say that we don't require the government to collect taxes to pay for roads and such? No...I did not. You obviously got lost in trying to comprehend my post because you were too quick to want to pay homage to the government.
So...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
The government doesn't deserve ANY thanks from the taxpayer. Our thanks comes in the form of taxes that THEY are supposed to use in accordance with the basic needs of a nation. We decide those needs...NOT the government. They are SUPPOSED to represent us.
You really need to get a clue.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
Can you tell me how the government EARNED the money to pay for such things?
I don't get your bizarro attitude anyway. Did I say that we don't require the government to collect taxes to pay for roads and such? No...I did not. You obviously got lost in trying to comprehend my post because you were too quick to want to pay homage to the government.
So...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
The government doesn't deserve ANY thanks from the taxpayer. Our thanks comes in the form of taxes that THEY are supposed to use in accordance with the basic needs of a nation. We decide those needs...NOT the government. They are SUPPOSED to represent us.
You really need to get a clue.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
o...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
It worked fine from FDR until Reagen, despite your attitude that the government is the big bad wolf.
You're a product of corporate brainwashing that occurred as a backlash to the New Deal. It took a good 30-50 before the rich got their way, once Reagen got into office, but they have. Since Reagen, the message has been NOTHING but "government is bad!!!".
We're back to the 1920s economically, except we have safety nets to keep the country from being Hooverville again. (Although arguably, we do in certain places like Detroit)
It's ironic when politicians who are government employees, pulling in huge paychecks and hefty benefits scream about how bad the government is and how much money is being spent. If they hate the government so much, maybe they should have been a ditch diggers instead of getting government jobs.
They are in it for the payola from corporations to get them in office, and kickbacks from the corps when they pass laws the corps want.
To suggest otherwise, when it's done so openly and blatantly in Washington, is to suggest madness and/or complete and total stupidity.
Yes, the government has corruption but it's so because people are putting anti-gov people in the gov. You may as well have a bald man selling hair restorer, an obese person giving you diet advice, or a catholic priest in charge of a pack of cub scouts. Not exactly the most trustworthy people for the jobs, if you ask me.
o...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
It worked fine from FDR until Reagen, despite your attitude that the government is the big bad wolf.
You're a product of corporate brainwashing that occurred as a backlash to the New Deal. It took a good 30-50 before the rich got their way, once Reagen got into office, but they have. Since Reagen, the message has been NOTHING but "government is bad!!!".
We're back to the 1920s economically, except we have safety nets to keep the country from being Hooverville again. (Although arguably, we do in certain places like Detroit)
It's ironic when politicians who are government employees, pulling in huge paychecks and hefty benefits scream about how bad the government is and how much money is being spent. If they hate the government so much, maybe they should have been a ditch diggers instead of getting government jobs.
They are in it for the payola from corporations to get them in office, and kickbacks from the corps when they pass laws the corps want.
To suggest otherwise, when it's done so openly and blatantly in Washington, is to suggest madness and/or complete and total stupidity.
Yes, the government has corruption but it's so because people are putting anti-gov people in the gov. You may as well have a bald man selling hair restorer, an obese person giving you diet advice, or a catholic priest in charge of a pack of cub scouts. Not exactly the most trustworthy people for the jobs, if you ask me.
Originally Posted By: Cubey
Originally Posted By: andrewg
o...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
It worked fine from FDR until Reagen, despite your attitude that the government is the big bad wolf.
You're a product of corporate brainwashing that occurred as a backlash to the New Deal. It took a good 30-50 before the rich got their way, once Reagen got into office, but they have. Since Reagen, the message has been NOTHING but "government is bad!!!".
We're back to the 1920s economically, except we have safety nets to keep the country from being Hooverville again. (Although arguably, we do in certain places like Detroit)
It's ironic when politicians who are government employees, pulling in huge paychecks and hefty benefits scream about how bad the government is and how much money is being spent. If they hate the government so much, maybe they should have been a ditch diggers instead of getting government jobs.
They are in it for the payola from corporations to get them in office, and kickbacks from the corps when they pass laws the corps want.
To suggest otherwise, when it's done so openly and blatantly in Washington, is to suggest madness and/or complete and total stupidity.
Yes, the government has corruption but it's so because people are putting anti-gov people in the gov. You may as well have a bald man selling hair restorer, an obese person giving you diet advice, or a catholic priest in charge of a pack of cub scouts. Not exactly the most trustworthy people for the jobs, if you ask me.
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
Originally Posted By: andrewg
o...you think it's a good idea for more regulations, laws, and taxes because we all NEED more government oversight of our lives? What percentage of our incomes should we be forced to surrender to the government...above the 40% we already give it? 60%? 80%?
It worked fine from FDR until Reagen, despite your attitude that the government is the big bad wolf.
You're a product of corporate brainwashing that occurred as a backlash to the New Deal. It took a good 30-50 before the rich got their way, once Reagen got into office, but they have. Since Reagen, the message has been NOTHING but "government is bad!!!".
We're back to the 1920s economically, except we have safety nets to keep the country from being Hooverville again. (Although arguably, we do in certain places like Detroit)
It's ironic when politicians who are government employees, pulling in huge paychecks and hefty benefits scream about how bad the government is and how much money is being spent. If they hate the government so much, maybe they should have been a ditch diggers instead of getting government jobs.
They are in it for the payola from corporations to get them in office, and kickbacks from the corps when they pass laws the corps want.
To suggest otherwise, when it's done so openly and blatantly in Washington, is to suggest madness and/or complete and total stupidity.
Yes, the government has corruption but it's so because people are putting anti-gov people in the gov. You may as well have a bald man selling hair restorer, an obese person giving you diet advice, or a catholic priest in charge of a pack of cub scouts. Not exactly the most trustworthy people for the jobs, if you ask me.
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
Originally Posted By: andrewg
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It's known as "denial".
There's dozens, if not hundreds. You don't hear about them much though. Why? The squeaky wheels get the oil. The crazies are mostly who you hear about when they say or do insane things and get all the media attention. To name another good one though, Elizabeth Warren.
Unfortunately, much of the Democratic party has no backbone, due to a fair amount being bought and paid for by big biz, same as many Republicans. But the republicans do motivate their base better, albeit with hate and fear of anyone "different", where as the Dems tend to sit on their hands a lot and try to be cooperative with people who refuse to be. Obama has been spineless in the sense that he has been so nice to the republicans on almost everything, save for the Keystone pipeline. He has handed them almost everything they have wanted on a silver platter. They put up a big front screaming insane racist, anti-communist nonsense, while he signs their bills into law.
As much as I dislike Hilary, she'd still be better than a right winger.
Due to too much money in politics, it often boils down to a choice between benign cancer or malignant cancer. Either way, you have cancer, but one is far worse than the other.
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It's known as "denial".
There's dozens, if not hundreds. You don't hear about them much though. Why? The squeaky wheels get the oil. The crazies are mostly who you hear about when they say or do insane things and get all the media attention. To name another good one though, Elizabeth Warren.
Unfortunately, much of the Democratic party has no backbone, due to a fair amount being bought and paid for by big biz, same as many Republicans. But the republicans do motivate their base better, albeit with hate and fear of anyone "different", where as the Dems tend to sit on their hands a lot and try to be cooperative with people who refuse to be. Obama has been spineless in the sense that he has been so nice to the republicans on almost everything, save for the Keystone pipeline. He has handed them almost everything they have wanted on a silver platter. They put up a big front screaming insane racist, anti-communist nonsense, while he signs their bills into law.
As much as I dislike Hilary, she'd still be better than a right winger.
Due to too much money in politics, it often boils down to a choice between benign cancer or malignant cancer. Either way, you have cancer, but one is far worse than the other.
Originally Posted By: Cubey
Originally Posted By: andrewg
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It's known as "denial".
There's dozens, if not hundreds. You don't hear about them much though. Why? The squeaky wheels get the oil. The crazies are mostly who you hear about when they say or do insane things and get all the media attention. To name another good one though, Elizabeth Warren.
Unfortunately, much of the Democratic party has no backbone, due to a fair amount being bought and paid for by big biz, same as many Republicans. But the republicans do motivate their base better, albeit with hate and fear of anyone "different", where as the Dems tend to sit on their hands a lot and try to be cooperative with people who refuse to be. Obama has been spineless in the sense that he has been so nice to the republicans on almost everything, save for the Keystone pipeline. He has handed them almost everything they have wanted on a silver platter. They put up a big front screaming insane racist, anti-communist nonsense, while he signs their bills into law.
As much as I dislike Hilary, she'd still be better than a right winger.
Due to too much money in politics, it often boils down to a choice between benign cancer or malignant cancer. Either way, you have cancer, but one is far worse than the other.
By saying repeated things to me that are pretty much without merit (like the "denial" hogwash), I don't really have much to converse with you about. You make little sense and are all over the board with statements that really have no correlation or support to your arguments. You complain about corruption and the money interests in government, yet say that you'll be voting for one of the most corrupt politicians as well as one that has made millions from her political associations.
Very odd and shows that you really don't even believe your own words.
Have a good evening.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
You think that the government is corrupt because voters are putting anti-government people in office?
That make no sense, what so ever.
Can you give me a list of current pro-government people in office that you feel are above being corrupt? I'd be interested in who you think is honest besides Bernie Sanders (although watch him support the highly corrupt Hillary when he loses the nomination).
It makes perfect sense. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It's known as "denial".
There's dozens, if not hundreds. You don't hear about them much though. Why? The squeaky wheels get the oil. The crazies are mostly who you hear about when they say or do insane things and get all the media attention. To name another good one though, Elizabeth Warren.
Unfortunately, much of the Democratic party has no backbone, due to a fair amount being bought and paid for by big biz, same as many Republicans. But the republicans do motivate their base better, albeit with hate and fear of anyone "different", where as the Dems tend to sit on their hands a lot and try to be cooperative with people who refuse to be. Obama has been spineless in the sense that he has been so nice to the republicans on almost everything, save for the Keystone pipeline. He has handed them almost everything they have wanted on a silver platter. They put up a big front screaming insane racist, anti-communist nonsense, while he signs their bills into law.
As much as I dislike Hilary, she'd still be better than a right winger.
Due to too much money in politics, it often boils down to a choice between benign cancer or malignant cancer. Either way, you have cancer, but one is far worse than the other.
By saying repeated things to me that are pretty much without merit (like the "denial" hogwash), I don't really have much to converse with you about. You make little sense and are all over the board with statements that really have no correlation or support to your arguments. You complain about corruption and the money interests in government, yet say that you'll be voting for one of the most corrupt politicians as well as one that has made millions from her political associations.
Very odd and shows that you really don't even believe your own words.
Have a good evening.
Last edited:
ID laws, outside of motor vehicles, are for the purpose of law enforcement documentation and nothing else.
Just another way for the government to make sure you're not doing anything on your own, outside of their system.
Years from now, they will crow about how "unsecure" this "necessary" system is, and demand electronic implants to the applause of the public.
By then, all of the "tattoo and railcar" crew will be long forgotten, so nobody will say anything.
Just another way for the government to make sure you're not doing anything on your own, outside of their system.
Years from now, they will crow about how "unsecure" this "necessary" system is, and demand electronic implants to the applause of the public.
By then, all of the "tattoo and railcar" crew will be long forgotten, so nobody will say anything.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
ID laws, outside of motor vehicles, are for the purpose of law enforcement documentation and nothing else.
Just another way for the government to make sure you're not doing anything on your own, outside of their system.
Years from now, they will crow about how "unsecure" this "necessary" system is, and demand electronic implants to the applause of the public.
By then, all of the "tattoo and railcar" crew will be long forgotten, so nobody will say anything.
Considering your forum sig shows you own at least 4 vehicles, you seem to have no problem with falling in line, playing ball with the government for Photo ID and registrations, or you'd be in a horse and buggy so you wouldn't need a driver's license, car registration, and insurance. But that's something you accept and do, so basically it's fine and dandy for the gov to register and keep track of you and what you have, but ONLY if you can have something you want. Talk about being submissive to the government!! "Down with gov regulation, ID and registration tracking!!! ....unless it's related something I want. Then I'll go along with it."
ID laws, outside of motor vehicles, are for the purpose of law enforcement documentation and nothing else.
Just another way for the government to make sure you're not doing anything on your own, outside of their system.
Years from now, they will crow about how "unsecure" this "necessary" system is, and demand electronic implants to the applause of the public.
By then, all of the "tattoo and railcar" crew will be long forgotten, so nobody will say anything.
Considering your forum sig shows you own at least 4 vehicles, you seem to have no problem with falling in line, playing ball with the government for Photo ID and registrations, or you'd be in a horse and buggy so you wouldn't need a driver's license, car registration, and insurance. But that's something you accept and do, so basically it's fine and dandy for the gov to register and keep track of you and what you have, but ONLY if you can have something you want. Talk about being submissive to the government!! "Down with gov regulation, ID and registration tracking!!! ....unless it's related something I want. Then I'll go along with it."
Cubey,
that last makes less sense than most of what you've posted on the subject.
Motor vehicle use requires a level of skill and testing, and here eyesight testing etc. You are operating a vehicle with a huge amout of kinetic energy, so regular inspections for things like brakes, safety and emissions systems are part of the conditional privilige of driving a motor vehicle.
You mention horse and buggy...why is that any different to riding a pushbike ?
So you advocate carrying ID and being fined without it when walking out your front door ?
You could still get hit, and end up in the ER...
that last makes less sense than most of what you've posted on the subject.
Motor vehicle use requires a level of skill and testing, and here eyesight testing etc. You are operating a vehicle with a huge amout of kinetic energy, so regular inspections for things like brakes, safety and emissions systems are part of the conditional privilige of driving a motor vehicle.
You mention horse and buggy...why is that any different to riding a pushbike ?
So you advocate carrying ID and being fined without it when walking out your front door ?
You could still get hit, and end up in the ER...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You mention horse and buggy...why is that any different to riding a pushbike ?
So you advocate carrying ID and being fined without it when walking out your front door ?
You could still get hit, and end up in the ER...
I was making a point that was completely over your head, it seems, so I'll say it again: You act anti-ID, "keep government out of my business" but you submit to it willingly for your cars.
If you don't think riding a bike takes skill to stay alive in traffic, you've never ridden a bike in your life outside of parks or sidewalks.
There are many states that consider a "DUI" on bikes a prosecutable offense because it's a "vehicle".
http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bui_full_chart.pdf
You mention horse and buggy...why is that any different to riding a pushbike ?
So you advocate carrying ID and being fined without it when walking out your front door ?
You could still get hit, and end up in the ER...
I was making a point that was completely over your head, it seems, so I'll say it again: You act anti-ID, "keep government out of my business" but you submit to it willingly for your cars.
If you don't think riding a bike takes skill to stay alive in traffic, you've never ridden a bike in your life outside of parks or sidewalks.
There are many states that consider a "DUI" on bikes a prosecutable offense because it's a "vehicle".
http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bui_full_chart.pdf
DUI on a horse is prosecutable in my state...
Again...you could get hit by a car walking down the street...and end up in E.R. which was your original premise for requiring ID.
So you are happy with "papers please" when outside your domicile ?
Again...you could get hit by a car walking down the street...and end up in E.R. which was your original premise for requiring ID.
So you are happy with "papers please" when outside your domicile ?
But I also have gas cans I can barely use. I pay over 20% excise taxes on cell phone and internet. I have to have a TPMS system in a new car that I really don't want to pay for as I can buy a good tire pressure gauge for less than what any one component in the TPMS costs....
Look, I'm not calling for anarchy, I just don't want nor need a nanny.
If others want it, I would allow them the freedom to have it. If I don't, shouldn't I have the freedom to not have so much nanny state?
Originally Posted By: Cubey
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
Look, I'm not calling for anarchy, I just don't want nor need a nanny.
If others want it, I would allow them the freedom to have it. If I don't, shouldn't I have the freedom to not have so much nanny state?
Originally Posted By: Cubey
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Fine comrade. Suit yourself and if you think more government is the answer...be my guest.
You have paved roads to drive on and a relatively safe car to drive thanks to the government. Not to mention safe properly labeled food, clean water, and electricity (especially so, if you live in a rural area).
Speaking on behalf of the government: You're welcome.
- Status
Similar threads
