LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.


A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.


A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

And it costs 14 Billion to do a headcount? Get real. Census workers are making 15-20 dollars an hour. You think that's a wise use of government resources?

LJ wrote:

that's never been it. EVER. People want to cite the constitution and what the people of the time did, well, even in the very first census it was more than that.

LJ wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

LJ wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.


A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

I'm not against a simple headcount.

Such as how many males and how many females. That should be it.

that's never been it. EVER. People want to cite the constitution and what the people of the time did, well, even in the very first census it was more than that.

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.


A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.


A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

And it costs 14 Billion to do a headcount? Get real. Census workers are making 15-20 dollars an hour. You think that's a wise use of government resources?

So wait... what are you arguing here? That the census itself is a waste and of time and money? Or that the way that the gov't handles it is a waste of money? I would say that you are wrong on the first part and correct on the second one.

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

the laws protecting the privacy of the census were not in place when that happend.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

And it costs 14 Billion to do a headcount? Get real. Census workers are making 15-20 dollars an hour. You think that's a wise use of government resources?

So wait... what are you arguing here? That the census itself is a waste and of time and money? Or that the way that the gov't handles it is a waste of money? I would say that you are wrong on the first part and correct on the second one.

I think it's a waste of time and money. The government can get an accurate count of all the people in this country without the census.

Main Entry: cen·sus
Pronunciation: \?sen(t)-s?s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from cens?re
Date: 1634

1 : a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2 : a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically : a periodic governmental enumeration of population
3 : count, tally

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

the laws protecting the privacy of the census were not in place when that happend.

And you think privacy laws will stop the government from using this information however they want? Ha.

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

the laws protecting the privacy of the census were not in place when that happend.

And you think privacy laws will stop the government from using this information however they want? Ha.

haha yeah, i do.

On July 23, 2004, EPIC obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups. The tabulations apparently include information about United States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whose families have lived in the United States for generations.

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

And it costs 14 Billion to do a headcount? Get real. Census workers are making 15-20 dollars an hour. You think that's a wise use of government resources?

So wait... what are you arguing here? That the census itself is a waste and of time and money? Or that the way that the gov't handles it is a waste of money? I would say that you are wrong on the first part and correct on the second one.

I think it's a waste of time and money. The government can get an accurate count of all the people in this country without the census.

That makes 0 sense and has to be the worst argument I have ever heard

From Merriam Webster

Main Entry: cen·sus
Pronunciation: \?sen(t)-s?s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from cens?re
Date: 1634

1 : a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2 : a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically : a periodic governmental enumeration of population
3 : count, tally

In other words, that is exactly what the census is and what the word means. It's not some arbitrary program made up by the U.S. gov't.

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

the laws protecting the privacy of the census were not in place when that happend.

And you think privacy laws will stop the government from using this information however they want? Ha.

haha yeah, i do.

Where were the privacy laws here? Or do Arab Americans not deserve the same privacy? Government and privacy have nothing to do with each other. The fact is any information given to the government can be used against you.

On July 23, 2004, EPIC obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups. The tabulations apparently include information about United States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whose families have lived in the United States for generations.

http://epic.org/privacy/census/foia/

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

You still aren't making any sense.
Are you against enumeration?
Do you understand what apportionment is?
or
Do you just feel the gov't is extremely inefficient in how they go about doing the census?

And while they may know how many people, I thought you were a constitutionalist?

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

the laws protecting the privacy of the census were not in place when that happend.

And you think privacy laws will stop the government from using this information however they want? Ha.

haha yeah, i do.

Where were the privacy laws here? Or do Arab Americans not deserve the same privacy? Government and privacy have nothing to do with each other. The fact is any information given to the government can be used against you.

On July 23, 2004, EPIC obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups. The tabulations apparently include information about United States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whose families have lived in the United States for generations.

http://epic.org/privacy/census/foia/

did you look at the actual documents? they are no names or anything that identifies a person. so Lakewood Ohio has a 4% arab population....ok now what?

tk421 wrote:
Nothing, I give up. If you are perfectly fine with the government knowing everything about you, more power to you. I can't imagine that the stand up quality people in charge of this country would ever misuse this data.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

tk421 wrote:
Nothing, I give up. If you are perfectly fine with the government knowing everything about you, more power to you. I can't imagine that the stand up quality people in charge of this country would ever misuse this data.

The paranoia here is amazing. Give me your address and I'll find out everything about you that the census asks for (and a lot more) in ten minutes. They aren't exactly deep-diving into your darkest secrets here.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

You still aren't making any sense.
Are you against enumeration?
Do you understand what apportionment is?
or
Do you just feel the gov't is extremely inefficient in how they go about doing the census?

And while they may know how many people, I thought you were a constitutionalist?

Then tell me, how exactly is this information used for that purpose? All that is needed is an accurate headcount. What does a person's race, telephone #, whether or not they owned or rented, their name, sex, age and date of birth have to do with apportionment? Each state is assigned a certain number of representatives based entirely on the population, what do those other questions have anything to do with it?

tk421 wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

tk421 wrote:
Nothing, I give up. If you are perfectly fine with the government knowing everything about you, more power to you. I can't imagine that the stand up quality people in charge of this country would ever misuse this data.

The paranoia here is amazing. Give me your address and I'll find out everything about you that the census asks for (and a lot more) in ten minutes. They aren't exactly deep-diving into your darkest secrets here.

So because the information is already out there, we should volunteer it? That's a good argument. Call me paranoid if you want, I do not and never will trust the government.

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

You still aren't making any sense.
Are you against enumeration?
Do you understand what apportionment is?
or
Do you just feel the gov't is extremely inefficient in how they go about doing the census?

And while they may know how many people, I thought you were a constitutionalist?

Then tell me, how exactly is this information used for that purpose? All that is needed is an accurate headcount. What does a person's race, telephone #, whether or not they owned or rented, their name, sex, age and date of birth have to do with apportionment? Each state is assigned a certain number of representatives based entirely on the population, what do those other questions have anything to do with it?

So you are changing your argument again? It's empirical data that is a very important historical snapshot of our country. I am not 100% sure on what information can be seen by whom, but the info could be very important for the building of schools, hospitals, fire houses, police stations, etc etc etc etc

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

You still aren't making any sense.
Are you against enumeration?
Do you understand what apportionment is?
or
Do you just feel the gov't is extremely inefficient in how they go about doing the census?

And while they may know how many people, I thought you were a constitutionalist?

Then tell me, how exactly is this information used for that purpose? All that is needed is an accurate headcount. What does a person's race, telephone #, whether or not they owned or rented, their name, sex, age and date of birth have to do with apportionment? Each state is assigned a certain number of representatives based entirely on the population, what do those other questions have anything to do with it?

So you are changing your argument again? It's empirical data that is a very important historical snapshot of our country. I am not 100% sure on what information can be seen by whom, but the info could be very important for the building of schools, hospitals, fire houses, police stations, etc etc etc etc

No, I'm saying that the constitution calls for a head count only. That's it. How many people live at this address? Done. The other questions are not needed. It is a total waste of time and money. The government doesn't need to pay people 15 dollars an hour to hound citizens for days to get information from them. It doesn't need GPS coordinates of every household in this country. I don't care about the historical records, that's not important to me.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Do you honestly not think that between all the government bureaucracy and agencies that the U.S. government does not know right now the exact number of people living in this country? They really need to send out a form and waste 14 Billion dollars to get a count?

You still aren't making any sense.
Are you against enumeration?
Do you understand what apportionment is?
or
Do you just feel the gov't is extremely inefficient in how they go about doing the census?

And while they may know how many people, I thought you were a constitutionalist?

Then tell me, how exactly is this information used for that purpose? All that is needed is an accurate headcount. What does a person's race, telephone #, whether or not they owned or rented, their name, sex, age and date of birth have to do with apportionment? Each state is assigned a certain number of representatives based entirely on the population, what do those other questions have anything to do with it?

So you are changing your argument again? It's empirical data that is a very important historical snapshot of our country. I am not 100% sure on what information can be seen by whom, but the info could be very important for the building of schools, hospitals, fire houses, police stations, etc etc etc etc

No, I'm saying that the constitution calls for a head count only. That's it. How many people live at this address? Done. The other questions are not needed. It is a total waste of time and money. The government doesn't need to pay people 15 dollars an hour to hound citizens for days to get information from them. It doesn't need GPS coordinates of every household in this country. I don't care about the historical records, that's not important to me.